This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket articles
There is a toolserver based WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in one big list and in CSV format)
Shouldn't a tie be considered as a win for win percentage calculation based on the end-result, i.e., super-over or bowl-out, rather than a splitting of points? Does this not simply defeat the purpose of having a tie-breaker in the end? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInnocentBystander (talk • contribs) 13:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
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.
† 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) 11:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: ICC Men's T20 World Cup is the official name by ICC. The logo itself in the article showing the name. It would be bizzare to not write the official name in the article. Secondly, all other popular website like CRICBUZZ, ESPN, CRIC WAVES address the tournament disambiguous way. Citation already added in the article also says so. Finally, the argument of inconsistency does not come into picture, by that logic, the article should not be even named as ICC T20 World Cup as previous all other edition are named as ICC World Twenty20. And lastly, from now all ICC tournament will be disambiguously named, for male tournament it will be added "Men's" and for female, it will be "Women's" starting the T20 tournament. So, if its official then Wikipedia must display the same and make changes to other articles to maintain consistency with the latest article but not making changes in the official name to bring consistency with the previous articles. Dey subrata (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The old title doesn't really work in terms of naturalness for me. Two abbreviations after each other make me think of some computer tournament instead of sport. If this title change doesn't make it, the lede should make clear that this is about men's cricket. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The abbreviations are not next to each other anymore. Two abbreviations next to each other gives me the impression we're talking computers instead of sport. By including a gender, it's more clear that this is sport as there aren't that many domains in life anymore where we separate things by gender. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A bit yes. I had to explicitly learn that FIFA world Cup wasn't the name for the two tournaments together, but instead a term reserved for the men's tournament. It still takes me a bit of brain power each time it's mentioned to realize they're not talking about both World Cups. I've had countless conversations about football where people did get confused about the gender when not explicitly mentioned. In contrast to football, cricket is not very well known outside of the UK + connected countries, so many international readers might not know the intricacies of gender politics there and just assume that it's similar to hockeyortennis in terms of mentioning gender in the case we're only talking about one gender. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have. I am fifteen years old, who first encountered with FIFA world cup now, I felt confusion in determining what gender is playing this tournament and I am severely confused with "male" team being called as "national team" but "female" team is segregated as "women's national team". Yes I have confusion.. why the idea of generation before mine is putting there sexist idea and gender biased idea on me. I would rather prefer to define the article as "ICC Mens' T20 Worldcup" (which is offcial now) which makes me clear along with every new idividuals like me who first encountered it, without reading history of the tournament, because I don't want to go through all what happened in past, I like to focus on present things and I don't find disambiguaity in the name and thats why the official name is "ICC Men's T20 World Cup" not "ICC T20 World Cup" and I will be more confused as the Women's T20 gonna starts before the Men's T20 and it will be held in the same country and if we don't segregate I will be confused and many other. Dey subrata (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, it is a poor argument by bringing another sports reference to support your logic. If thats you logic then now answer me which one is less confusing, 2018 FIFA World Cup and Men's Hockey World Cup. Consider youself to be first time encountered with football and hockey world cup, and seeing both the name, in which case will you immediately say that, this tournament is definitely a men's tournament ??? Question yourself. This wikipedia is not for people who already knew things, but for the people also who are new to this world, don't make them confuse with your poor logic. Dey subrata (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thirdly, ask an Australian editor or reader, hey "When is the T20 World Cup?". Guess what, the first response will be Which one, Men's or Women's ???, we are the host of both tournament.. Now you got it. How confusing it is?? Yes its a huge confusion. (The page move is requested along with the page move of 2020 ICC T20 World Cup to 2020 ICC Men's T20 World Cup, thats why discussion of this move is relevant with the other page move ) Dey subrata (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if you don't have any answer it become personal attack, I did not do any personal attack, I know very well what a personal attack is. Better you answer all those asked above. Dey subrata (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I know very well what a personal attack is" - I know, as you have used them here. Anyway, if the title is confusing to you, then you read the lead to tell you what it refers to. For example, take this article linked from the frontpage. LugnutsFire Walk with Me13:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't response to my above points, specially 2nd and third. First response these.
I am reader who interested just in match infos, I don't want to go through the lead. Many people visit to just go through the stats, why should I waste my time in reading lead of the section.
Why should I have to read the lead to understand, "Oh it the men's tournamnet they are referring as ICC T20 World cup not by official name". I hope your response must be specific to the above points now. Dey subrata (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And if its only by reading "lead" I have to understand that the article is talking about ICC Men's T20 Worldcup, then why do you need to write even "T20 World Cup" you can just name the article ICC T20 tournament and just reading the lead one can understand what the article is talking about. Again a poor argument. Dey subrata (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you failed to respond to the above point 2nd and 3rd.
You repeated again what you said in your first comment, which I responded (above †) and after which you had no response. To clarify again there are many such articles which are disambiguously written for male "Men's" and for female "Women's", the example are given twice above, you must have ignored. Now we are talking about cricket, so please don't bring other sport here, because my example cancels your logic as I have given examples of other sports where its been used. If coming to football as you brought the topic, If FIFA officially annouce any of its tournament specifically as Men's, I will ask to change all tournamnets name and team name, but its not such officially by FIFA. But why here, because ICC has officially and specifically named it as Men's, period.Dey subrata (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
support, it's confusing to use the non-sex-specific name for the men's tournament when the official name is sex-specific and the non-sex-specific name may refer to both tournaments. Frietjes (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
– All ICC events and particular tournaments do not have the word Men's in it as the common name is that withoutt the mens, for example; 2023 Cricket World Cup, 2019 Cricket World Cupor2017 ICC Champions Trophy. Moreover, previous events of the same tournament are called 2016 ICC World Twenty20; where they dont have Men's. ICC introduced adding that word to the official title, yet as the common name for the 2023 Cricket World Cup does not use men's, neither should these set of articles; and the women's tournaments as per existing precedent already have the word "women's" in them. The qualifier articles for even the 2021 edition do not have men's; so it should be move. Its even debatable if the word "ICC" needs to be there in the name of every article.If editors do end up disagreeing to this move, then we would also have to change the Cricket World Cup articles to "ICC Men's Cricket World Cup; as that also has new official logo, name and branding." Obviously, that outcome would be acceptable (though it will make for a lot of unnecessary page moving and non-following of WP:COMMONNAME, so please keep this in mind before !voting. Apologies for having written this thrice)
Oppose — see this gender specification in T20 World Cup articles is required because we have both men's and women's tournaments in the same year. Like there is even 2024 Women's T20 World Cup to be held later this year. It is understandable in the ODI World Cup, but we should have "Men's" in the titles in this case. Cric editor (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All cricket men's national teams and women's teams coexist together but the male national teams do not have "mens", as names are according to common names; which is the convention for naming these articles.
"All cricket men's national teams and women's teams coexist together but the male national teams do not have "mens", as names are according to common names; which is the convention for naming these articles."
In my view, this needs to be changed too, example, there is a discussion on the Australian Men's Cricket team page on this as well, In fact for Australia, the cricket teams social media presence now includes the Men's team distinction. TheDataStudent (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should most likely fail. India national cricket team had a change request which failed. Also, with that logic, shouldnt we also then change 2023 Cricket World Cup to "2023 ICC Men's Cricket World Cup"? Then this logic would make sense; but it would rip through convention and cause a lot of moving. Its legit the common name. Pharaoh496 (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2023 world cup should also change as it was marketed by the ICC as 2023 Men's World Cup.
My point is that we should follow whatever branding guidelines have been used to name these events by the event organizer. ICC specifies the gender in its marketing material, therefore Wikipedia should follow suit.
But that does not mean we retroactively move previous events to fit the new naming scheme, especially when previous events were governed by older naming schemes. TheDataStudent (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for individual teams, I am still supportive of gendered team titles, having the Womens team specified as a Womens team, and the Mens team titled as just the national team suggests that the Womens team is somehow not on the same level as the Mens team as it pertains to national representation, this is however a social commentary and not relevant to the case at hand. TheDataStudent (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does not make sense - having one name for one edition which is different from those of the previous ones. We should ideally keep one common name - either keep ICC Men's in all article titles or remove it from all. Thats how common name works. Someone goes on and refers to it commonly as the "T20 World Cup"; and not the "ICC Men's T20 World Cup."
It does make for an argument that theres a women's equivalent tournament, which is why it should be called men's; but for tournaments like Cricket World Cup; ICC Champions Trophy; Asia Cup (officially called ACC Men's Asia Cup) and so on; national cricket teams (which dont have men's in the name) and so on.
The sole reason I am advocating for this move is for a same norm to be set in on all these cricket related tournaments - the branding will keep changing but the WP:COMMONNAME is gonna be the same for the time being. Pharaoh496 (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose these are clearly branded with men's in the name for these years, just look at the ICC event logos. This is unlike the 50 over Worls Cup, which brands the men's event as "Cricket World Cup". We shouldn't default to male as norm when sources and the ICC aren't doing so. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And before 2019, the ICC and sources were using male as norm and not including men's in the name, so that's fine for those articles (which aren't listed here) to use that name. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and respect your point. I am proposing this move in good faith. With that being said, the 2023 Cricket World Cup is named despite specific logo and official name branding as everyone just decided to follow usual convention.
I feel that all the ICC tournaments and related articles should have similar naming, with us following a common name for the article. Maybe even remove the “ICC” from the name as well.
The 2016 and before articles didnt have mens, 2021 and afterword do - we should keep one single convention and for that simply choose the common name. Its the same logic why the rcb page has its former name. @Joseph2302Pharaoh496 (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the arbiter of naming conventions for things it does not govern, the branding ICC uses includes the gender, therefore Wikipedia should do the same. TheDataStudent (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2024 (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.
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: not moved. Consensus against male default. However, there is no consensus on whether or not to remove ICC - while normally I would relist, I don't believe it will be possible to discern a consensus on that question given the focus on the other half of the proposal.
– This is not the first time this move has been requested. However, unfortunately, people give contrasting opinions for the same thing on different pages. The "ICC" does not need to be on tournament pages, and a mens/womens contrast is not needed. Please see the following -
These are clearly the WP:COMMONNAMES. Given Wikipedia doesn't have ICC or Men's on Cricket World Cup article, don't think it's necessary on other articles as well.
According to International cricket in 2024 (and other seasons as well); it says women's tournaments but, doesn't say men's tournaments. Furthermore, women cricket formats are WTest, WODI and WT20I but men's cricket formats are just Test, ODI and T20I not MTest, MODI and MT20I. We don't need the gender differentiations in men's events as they are the main events and should only have a hatnote about it. While, women's events should have the term "women's" given the historical significance of men's events.
Note:To whoever who closes this move, please note that while there may be comments supporting or opposing this, the voters are not responding to the valid points being made in the replies. New voters are listing same reasons without replying on the previous thread, witht the same cycle repeating. No clear consensus is being made, which isnt the first time. Hence, please do not instantly close after seeing a lot of opposition in the votes.Pharaoh496 (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes me as poor form - the closer is presumably capable of reading for themselves and determining the validity of points and whether a consensus has formed, without a bolded note from you artificially added to the top of the discussion.SCIAG (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Purposely. Those articles can be renamed without discussion, not so boldly, as their main pages follow this convention. They are wrongly named as it is. Pharaoh496 (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all. I don't think that it should be moved. If moved then it will be colided with football world cup article. Likewise, In football, we also have FIFA Women's world cup.Fade258 (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, It won't, FIFA does not have a Women's Cricket World Cup or Women's T20 World Cup, we are proposing to only remove the word ICC and gender deferential terms; but it will still have the words "Cricket", "T20", "Test", "ODI" etc. which are only in cricket. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know but FIFA have women's world cup. So, In my opinion ICC shouldn't be removed from the article. If ICC is removed from the article then FIFA also be removed from the articles related to football. Best Regards! Fade258 (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (male default): All aforementioned events (except WTC, Champion's Trophy) have been rebranded as explicitly "men's" to denote the two gendered equivalents at the same scale. It is also necessary for disambiguation. It should not be considered to be much different from other sports events that started out as male-only at competitive level (thus, not requiring disambiguation) but later gave women the same level, such as in athletic events at Olympics. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})16:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (ICC): ICC is typically not included in the WP:COMMONNAME of the event and is not needed for disambiguation either, so it may not be necessary. But, I have observed that the titles of most major sporting events include the organisation name, whenever that is included in the official name, even when the event doesn't need disambiguation from other events. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})16:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying that both genders should be considered equal when the governing body does so. Maybe, my attempt at drawing that parallel was not correct. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})16:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, given what you said will it be fine like the following,
No other international tournament article has Men's on it. No team does. I am not misogynistic or anything but its just the prolonged norm-breaking right here Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But, this is different because the proposed title are different this time, and did you even read the discussion at WT:CRIC? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE & WP:CONSISTENT. All possible primary sources like ICC, Cricbuzz, Almanack or news article says ICC Men's including the logo. I don't see why to use a name which will be confusing for people who are not familiar with cricket. And above that already there has been a consensus earlier on the topic. Rather Cricket World Cup should be named ICC Men's Cricket World Cup along with other related articles.
You seem to be confused about what sources we use. Independent, reliable sources such as Cricinfo are ideal whereas some of your chosen sources are not (tv guides? yikes). However, even some of your selected sources use "Men's", e.g. the BBC in the opening sentence (and here). There are countless other independent, reliable sources that do the same (e.g. 'Sky Sports, Al Jazeera, SuperSport, CNN, etc.). wjematherplease leave a message...17:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Literally the first sentence of the BBC article: "The ninth edition of the Men's T20 World Cup is now just days away." You aren't even managing to cherry-pick sources that support your viewpoint, let alone provide evidence of your claim. For every source you find that doesn't use the word "men's" (and not just the headline), another source using the word "men's" can also be found. wjematherplease leave a message...14:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The others arent though, and you are missing the point.
When the football world cup happens, the term used is FIFA World Cup, not FIFA Men's World Cup. Same is the story with the Main ODI WC and the Asia Cup.
There should be no discrepencies in naming tournament articles on Wikipedia. You can read the first line of the Asia Cup and CWC articles, with the name and official name, which is what it should be like here as well. Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Like ICC is the governing body for cricket, FIFA is for association football and the title of articles about the tournaments conducted by FIFA bear its name (see FIFA#FIFA competitions). Likewise the tournaments conducted by ICC should follow the same. Bairagi Ram (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same; FIFA World Cup would be just World Cup without it, but unlike it even without ICC; cricket articles have terms such as "Cricket", "T20", "Test", "ODI", "WT20I" etc. to differentiate them from other sports. and on that note, Even FIFA World Cup doesn't have men's on the title. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 06:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Pharaoh496:: No one closes move requests by simply counting the number of opposes. They do read the entire thing. You're comment above is unnecessarily gaslighting the closer into believing that opposers are arguing without merit. Let them read the discussion and arrive at a conclusion. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})13:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not gaslighting anything. You can see the previous rm discussion. Voters provide points and oppose. I try to discuss how that rebute is not a problem. I do not get a response, thinking this wont be a problem now. Still, it is opposed and closed. Pharaoh496 (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per previous discussions and the arguments made in this one, the current titles are in line with our guidelines, and we should not be making it more difficult for readers to find the article they are looking for by making titles ambiguous. wjematherplease leave a message...10:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to overly support anyone or take sides here @Wjemather but if all users are opposing with the same reasoning, and none of them is replying / responding when either I or @Vestrian24Bio share further insight, how is this his or my fault? Pharaoh496 (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far, no-one agrees with you on this. When that happens, it's better to simply accept which way the wind is blowing and move on to something more productive, rather than trying to beat everyone into submission (by just repeating yourselves ad-nauseam, not providing any further insight). It's often this kind of behaviour that deters people from responding. wjematherplease leave a message...16:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No definitely, I can see that no one is agreeing but it is also very clear that no one is interested in agreeing. You can clearly see with the points made by those who oppose that they have not even read properly the discussion so far, and if they are making the same points its just better to reply previously or further the argument rather than repeating it. Pharaoh496 (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are named based on WP:COMMONNAMES per WP:AT; rather than which sounds better. Also, why create a separate section when there's already an RM going on above.Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose men as default: this was the consensus of the earlier RM. The fact that you also propose removing "ICC" from the title doesn't change that. Sources differ on the common name, so the official name should be preferred. Also be careful of WP:BIAS skewing what sources seem more appropriate to you. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because for most of its history, that is how the event was named and remembered as. Now that it's been years since the name change, I believe it is time for an article title change. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})13:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats an extremely inconvinient change.
For example you name the 2023 event as such.
You cant name the 2019 and prior events similarly because they didnt have that name at the time.
So to avoid having different names, you use a common name.
This is exactly the problem here, with articles before 2016 and after 2021 on the T20 World Cup have different names because consensus to use the common name is not being made!Pharaoh496 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but its common name is still the T20 World Cup. The ICC refers to old tournaments as such - 2007 T20 World Cup, etc on instagram and its website. So it wont be contrasting to what I am proposing Pharaoh496 (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose men as default as per consensus from previous RM. Support removal of “ICC” from article titles as per WP:COMMONNAME. SCIAG (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose particularly the men as default point. There has been an effort to use more gender neutral language. The reason we don't use MODI etc on the season pages is because Cricinfo doesn't do so. There have been suggestions that we should, which I have resisted so far, but the proposal here goes to far the other way. Neutral on the inclusion of ICC. On a side note, there are a couple of editors, both quite recently joined, who have been making rather bold changes to the format of various pages without general consensus (some I agree with, others not). Adding a bold note directly to admin closers seems a bit 'just not cricket' Bs1jac (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I'd be neutral in such an RM, because while I appreciate gender equality, FIFA has not yet changed the name, whereas ICC did. Both aren't exactly the same. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})19:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is no connoseuir on keeping up with entities on names. From what I see, it is strong on convention, which unfortunately is not the case this time around Pharaoh496 (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2024 (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.
Already done This is in the 3rd paragraph now. Jamedeus (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
