Naming of ICC events - especially the T20 World Cup
The 50 Over ODI World Cup is named the
Cricket World Cup, without ICC or Men's even though the recent official name for the ICC given in 2023 was the ICC Men'sCricket World Cup. After discussion, the page was not moved due to following the common name. Same rule is followed for all of its related pages, categories and templates.
In contrast, the 20 Over T20I World Cup is named as ICC Men's T20 World Cup and discussions reaching the conclusion that we have to follow the official name. Same rule is followed for all of its related pages, categories and templates.
In the past however, (before 2021), all of the T20 World Cup pages had a previous name - The ICC World Twenty20: and did not have the word men's in it. Even on wiki where you're supposed to have a common continued name for all events - different ones are being followed - and contrasting reasons are being given in discussions to close them.
A possible solution from my side:
We can follow the
Cricket World Cup style - remove ICC and Men's from all the titles of the t20 world cup pages - for eg. 2024 T20 World Cup, 2016 World Twenty20, List of squads for the 2022 T20 World Cup. For the women's t20 world cup articles - we follow the same rule - 2024 Women's T20 World Cup, 2016 Women's World Twenty20, etc. Same style.
Next year when the Champions Trophy is held - we see what name the ICC brings out and then follow the same style of naming.
Thanks for reading this far editors - I hope we can deliberate! I shall be pinging some editors who have historically commented here (having both opinions), just to have conversation. Not trying to brigade.
Pharaoh496 (
talk)
08:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
First, Thanks for inviting me to contribute to this, hope to come to an agreed solution.
I still believe Wikipedia should not be able to override or otherwise "edit" the name of an event when the official branding from the owning organisations change their naming schemes (in this case the ICC).This is ultimately why I still believe that we need to begin including gender specification as how the ICC now refers to the world up. This is why I believe that for a longer term fix, this might need a further discussion on whether or not
Wikipedia:Official names requires changes in how it handles naming changes. in addition we may need to consider whether
Wikipedia:Article titles is relevant (specifically the Name Changes section may require more consideration). I however have not had the time to properly flesh out and open a discussion on that page, if anyone else is willing to (and sees merit in seeking further clarification from the guidelines), please feel free to do so.
With respect to the solutions, I don't see much difference between the current naming scheme and the one proposed in the first point, and I am generally not one to "kick the can down the road" so to speak, and therefore not willing to wait till the Champions trophy to make a decision. It is for those reasons I am happy to leave the pages as is, until the guidelines are clarified on these types of situations.
TheDataStudent (
talk)
09:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That might be true, but shouldnt they have a similar categorization of naming? Either remove icc or keep it for all, and remove men's or keep it for all?
Pharaoh496 (
talk)
10:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That might be true, but shouldnt they have a similar categorization of naming? Either remove icc or keep it for all, and remove men's or keep it for all?
Pharaoh496 (
talk)
10:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
For the odi world cup, it does have men's in ever article except wikipedia. while that in itself is totally fine - atleast we should follow that style for all icc events.
Pharaoh496 (
talk)
10:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Discussions related to this moves have been made before too, one was just a month or two before I guess. I think it would be fine with removing ICC, but having gender differentiation I feel is still necessary considering women's and men's tournaments are held in the same year.
Cric editor (
talk)
12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If you put women's in those pages, they are differentiated.
Add mens and its no different either, removing icc would require just the same amount of effort as adding mens.
Fundamentally this naming scheme mis-represents the status of womens events as somehow lower in the status quo as compared to the mens competition - it implies that the Mens World T20 is the penultimate competition in all of international cricket, and the womens game is just some seperate sideshow, I understand historical context may lend itself to that perspective, but it is no longer the case, and wikipedia should acknowledge and represent that.
TheDataStudent (
talk)
22:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That is very very far from the case - All men's teams and competitions of all sports accross the world dont have the name "men's" in their wiki page - no one is saying that the women's team or event is lower in status. Its the common name followed.
Pharaoh496 (
talk)
07:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You take any national team, any world cup; any ipl team and it does not have men's. This is the convention being followed, and the t20iwc should stick to it. Please do read again what I said in my earlier first message.
Pharaoh496 (
talk)
07:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
First of all, what other sporting bodies name their competitions is not relevant to this case, The ICC is not FIFA and FIFA is not ICC.
Secondly, there are many examples within cricket pages of Men's being in the title, 
If we are being so strict about WP common name for articles cricproject's remit, then there is more than ample evidence for Men's to be added as anything else related to the ICC contains a gender modifier. How individual nations decide to name their teams and competitions is not relevant because that's up to the national governing body. Anything directly ICC related/administered, like the World Cups, or Champions Trophy, should be named as per ICC naming schemes.
TheDataStudent (
talk)
02:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Rankings is different to what competitions are.
FIFA and ICC can be looked with the same eye as far as wikipedia names are concerned.
1. Both are ICC administered, therefore equivalent
2. No they aren't and should not be. Thats like saying Nepalese Cuisene and Indian Cuisine are the same because they happen to share geography and a similar spice pallete.
Take a look at
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.
Looks like 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 Vestrian24Bio (
TALK)
00:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Pharaoh496 should start an RM for a better consensus,
Hello all. Just began an expansion of this article. I think he has GA/FA potential, being a Test cricketer and England captain, with a lengthy career with Hampshire. If anyone has any sources they can add, it would be greatly appreciated. I'm happy to collab for GA/FA down the line.
AA (
talk)
20:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Squad templates for T20 World Cups
Why don't we have squad templates for every team playing at the World Cup for every season?, while we have the same for women's tournaments. These templates can not only be transcluded in players' pages, but also can be used in the articles of teams' performance at the World Cup.
For the past week, I've been creating articles for performance of teams at the T20 World Cup, for eg.
Australia at the T20 World Cup. Instead of having squads listed for every season just like in the
Cricket World Cup pages, we can replace them with these templates hence reducing the size of the page too.tead of
Please read the guidelines and help pages for templates, specifically navigation templates. Also, data-dumps are not suitable for an encyclopedia (especially when they are just duplicating information already contained in other articles); the "at the T20 WC" articles you are creating need well-sourced prose throughout. wjematherplease leave a message...10:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This list was created following the same format of the similar articles that already exist, we have lists of players that have represented at International cricket for even teams that have played only one T20I, and if
2024 Scotland Tri-Nation Series (round 3) fails to have a standalone article, that makes all of these series' articles from previous cycle not notable too. Please let me know the issues so that I can correct them :)
Cric editor (
talk)
16:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There are 24 rounds giving a total of 144 matches; that many of them in one article won't be constructive. Vestrian24Bio (
TALK)
08:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
24 rounds sounds a lot. Sooner or later someone's going to try to merge, redirect or delete them. There has to be a better way than this?
Desertarun (
talk)
08:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The round info should just be mentioned in the body of the article, it is completely confusing to have them in the titles. How does anyone reading the title know which competition it is Round N of? It fails at least 3 of the 5
WP:CRITERIA.
Spike 'em (
talk)
09:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Lugnuts was banned for creating tens of thousands of stub/spam articles just like these. Before doing any more work on these articles I suggest you find a work around that'll prevent them getting deleted or redirected.
Desertarun (
talk)
19:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
We could merge the 24 articles into 3 articles at least:
These articles were stub when they were initially assessed but now, they are Start/C class articles. There's many more like this in the category which needs a re-assessment. Vestrian24Bio (
TALK)
15:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Wisden Trophy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the
reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
Z1720 (
talk)
02:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello all. I was in the middle of attempting to expand the article on the above cricketer, when I noticed
the London Gazette reference referring to his wife, Ella. In it, her late husband is identified as "Colonel Edward Barrett". Interestingly, a search for Colonel Edward Barrett on the BNA brings up a chairman of the Farnham United Breweries, which would make sense as he was a Farnham man. CI and CA have his dates of birth and death as follows: 11 June 1846 – 23 December 1923. A notice of death in the BNA records his death from a motor accident as occurring on 19 January 1922, aged 67, making his year of birth 1854 or 1855. Is it likely CA and CI have the dates for a different Edward Barrett? An 1854/55 DOB would also make more sense, as his FC debut was 1885, making him more likely to debut at 29/30 than over 40. Thoughts?
AA (
talk)
19:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
His son's Cheltenham entry gives his father's address as Sandbanks in Dorset, where the inquest into Colonel Edward Barrett notes his residence as being... gotta be the same guy!
AA (
talk)
20:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There's no point in creating stub-class articles for future ICC events; they only have confirmed hosts, other than that not even the format is confirmed. Take a look at the following pages,
A consensus should be made on when new articles for future events should be created... Vestrian24Bio (
TALK)
10:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd suggest that the new articles should only be created when the qualification process for the event commences, then only we could know confirmed format, qualification scenario etc. Until then, they should remain as redirects. Vestrian24Bio (
TALK)
10:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply