Talk:Super Over

Lists of "... " decided by Super Overs

Hi all,
At present the article has four section "lists" of matches decided by Super Overs. Each list currently has only one entry; I would argue that, as Super Overs are rare and unusual, the use of list as a description is not in accordance with Wikipedia:Embedded list. I've been bold, and removed "List of...' from those sections.
--Shirt58 (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Fielding Rule

It was pointed out in the last match that Virendre Sehwag could not play in the Super Over because he had not fielded in the second innings. Such a rule is not stated in this article, and I was not aware of it either, but I think someone should confirm if this rule is actually valid or not, and if so, add it to the article.

Iamseiko (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)-_-

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2019

The super over was not used to declare Novak Djokovic victorious in the Wimbeldon. Super Over related to cricket, Novak Djokovic is a tennis player. 2607:FEA8:4CDF:FFDE:EC87:E36E:DDD1:E0D7 (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

 Already done. It was just vandalism that got removed. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Super Over vs super over

All the sources suggest it is "Super Over", such as the ICC. I've restored the previously undiscused page move. If anyone thinks it should be moved to "super over", please log it via WP:RM. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. “Super Over” is an informal proper noun used to refer to what the ICC refers to as a “one-over eliminator”, so it’s perfectly fine to capitalise both words per sources. – PeeJay 11:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• If this is the case it should be so capitalised throughout the article, not just the title. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I think I've changed them all now. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Disagree. This violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). "Super Over" is not an entity or the title of a work, so it is not a proper noun, hence we must use sentence case. I've also seen sources sometimes use sentence case. A discussion that has yet to include arguments from the instigator should not be considered consensus, in my opinion. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, but you'll need to log it at WP:RM and not move-war over the title. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Technically it's the "one over per side eliminator" but no-one actually calls it that. It appears to be capitalised as "Super Over" in the vast majority of uses that I see. If we're not following an official, technical, term, the article title should follow common usage, which is capitalising both words. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of domestic t20s

Since the list is getting long, i think its better we do not include domesy t20s and other matches in the section, or we could have a separate page for that. Bodi123 (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I think just cut them as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and rename the section "International matches decided by a Super Over". --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Strong support removal of domestic T20s. Pete "the damn fool who initially suggested including them" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Women's t20

Can someone add the list of women's T20 decided by super over Bodi123 (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)