• Image needs Alt text.

• Added. Harrias ^talk 06:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no information about 2012 season.

• As the 2012 season has not yet started, it would be inappropriate to include anything about it: this is a list of champions, not of seasons: I will update it at the end of the season, once there is a new champion, not earlier. Harrias ^talk 06:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A template at the end will be helpful.

• Added. Harrias ^talk 06:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ZiaKhan 22:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a quick comment on 3b, as I'm sure someone will mention, I think the list meets this certain criteria, as the parent article could be expanded and therefore render including this information redundant.

• I think as well, given that this bridges the Twenty20 Cup and the Friends Life t20 articles, there isn't really one parent article that it would be in. Harrias ^talk 17:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Could consider adding a history section such as in this list

• Possibly, but personally I think that would be more the purview of a history section of the Twenty20 Cup and the Friends Life t20 articles, and obviously, the individual articles. I think recently we have started to see more and more lists move away from the stand-alone format, and blur the edges between list and article, which is no bad thing, but for the moment with this list, I am happy to follow the standard stand-alone list format for this. Harrias ^talk 17:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure there is much point in listing the counties that haven't won a championship in the second table it seems redundant to me.

NapHit (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you are probably right: it is something I debated with myself a few times back and forth. I'll leave it in for the moment, and if we keep this visible, just for any further comment, but if nothing more is said on the matter, I'll get rid of it in a week or so. Harrias ^talk 17:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Given no one else has voiced an opinion either way, I've removed them. Harrias ^talk 11:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm.. this has messed up the formatting of the references a little, as the image trails down into that section: have a look and let me know what you think? Harrias ^talk 11:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you could afford to put "English Twenty20 cricket champions" in bold as you're not linking the key terms until after that.

• Done. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Daily Telegraph is actually The Daily Telegraph.

• Done. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I do have a tiny niggling wonder if you could have something along the lines of a History section which describes the various finals, but that may be better served in a List of English Twenty20 cricket championship finals?

• As I said above, I think something like that would be better served in the parent article(s), but yes, the finals specifically would probably be better placed in a specific list of the finals: should such a page be deemed notable. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead image caption probably could use (players celebrating the 20xx victory) or something to put the image into better context.

• The issue is that the photo is specifically of them celebrating their semi-final win in 2012. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You could have "(pictured celebrating their semi-final win in 2012)"? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Harrias ^talk 06:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps worth noting that the B&H was an ODI competition with 40(?) overs, so the shortening of the matches came about naturally since half as many overs were played?

• Done. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Friends Provident t20" looks funny to my eyes, that you link Friends Provident and then have t20 unlinked afterwards. Would consider "the 'Friends Provident t20'...".

• Done, though for consistency have also done it for the B&H, Twenty20 Cup and FLt20. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "each team was allowed two overseas players" not sure you need to repeat "overseas players".

• Done. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider linking Quota players for "overseas player". I've never heard of "quota player" but the article does a bit of a job on explaining what you mean.

• Done, nice find, I've been looking for something decent to link that to for ages! Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "qualified for the Champions League Twenty20," (I'd say who that was) and how did they get on?

• I'm not sure on this one; given that the information provided here provides an easy way to check which teams it was, it would seem slightly superfluous to list the counties in the lead, and information on how they did I would think is more detail than is needed in this list article, but you could convince me? Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's okay, it was just a "maybe" for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Essex CC isn't linked in the table.
• Which then poses the awkward question, should all the top scorers etc have their county linked?!

• Linking these two points together: good point! I have linked the counties wherever that county was not the winner or runner-up, how's it look? I'm not against linking them all if it will be a visual improvement: it does look a little random at the moment! Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would link each one each time, it does look a little odd... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Harrias ^talk 06:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure that "(Ordered by..)" should have a capital O each time. (And "... Runs" and "... Wickets" etc).

• That's how they copy from the source. I'm not against changing them, but I don't see that it does much harm either way. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it doesn't really do any harm, but I tend to apply the rules of grammar to ref titles as well as article content. Although I must admit that I can't find that in MOS anywhere, so I guess it's just a personal pref... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 3 should use an en-dash, not a hyphen in the title.

• Done. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC) As usual, thanks for your comments. A few of my replies probably require some further thought and discussion, so I look forward to your continued input. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]