Talk:Cricket World Cup

Former featured articleCricket World Cup is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 13, 2007.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 17, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
February 17, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 13, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 16, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
February 22, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
November 19, 2022Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 7, 2012, June 7, 2015, and June 7, 2021.
Current status: Former featured article

Attendance

Just checking, but the 2015 Rugby World Cup and the 2017 World Baseball Classic both had higher total attendance figures than the 2015 Cricket World Cup. The mention that the Cricket World Cup was the third highest in attendance after the FIFA World Cup and the Summer Olympics was not cited.Barney Hill (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2019

Please update the table of the world champions. Fury Anish2003 (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Given the flurry of activity, I'm assuming it has been. Otherwise, it's not clear what you want. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2019

Please replace "Twenty nations have qualified for the Cricket World Cup at least once. Seven teams have competed in every tournament, five of which have won the title." with "Twenty nations have qualified for the Cricket World Cup at least once. Seven teams have competed in every tournament, six of which have won the title." beacuse New Zealand also won the title in 2019. yash.. 04:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Willbb234 (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2019

At World Cup Results/History it says 2019 World Cup was won by England over New Zealand due to more boundaries and pure luck. The "pure luck" part is unprofessional. 82.217.164.86 (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

removal of sourced content

I re-removed the content about the 2011 final allegedly being fixed. The claims were made 9 years after the event, received little coverage and an investigation into them was quickly closed as no evidence was ever provided : [1]. Spike 'em (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 February 2021

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: Consensus against the proposed moves (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


– Consensus over WP:COMMONNAME appears to be "Cricket World Cup", as it is currently, but some editors are unconvinced and no formal, lengthy discussion has been had about this. A decisive result would help stop resisting editors from using non-conforming article names (like ICC Cricket World Cup Super League). Related move requests (February 2019 also suggesting "ICC Cricket World Cup", July 2020 suggesting "ICC Men's Cricket World Cup") all supported keeping "Cricket World Cup". As proposed by Lugnuts and Joseph2302 here. SocietyBox (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Should this proposal fail, I think some of the related pages (such as History of the Cricket World Cup) should have their undiscussed page moves reverted, but the nominator here closed their own request early. Spike 'em (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My view on the meta-question is that the same name for the competition should be used in all article titles, for consistency, and that that name should be the consise, universally applicable, and generally most common: "Cricket World Cup", without "ICC". W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:00, 17 February 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.

FA concerns

Looking at this older FA as part of the ongoing FA sweeps. There is significant uncited text throughout. The Media coverage section seems to me to be heavily flawed. It lacks statistics for the most recent Cup, and it's unclear to me why tickets sold to attend in person would be in the media coverage section. The latter half of this section looks like it is just a conglomeration of random unrelated items such as mascots, a Google Doodle, and singling out a specific TV provider why this is significant when it is televised in over 200 countries. This needs some cleanup, or a featured article review may have to occur. Hog Farm Talk 16:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied the section (removing the Mascots) and split out attendance (using the football World Cup as an example). Both sections are now quite short and in definite need of some updates. Spike 'em (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding it difficult to find numbers the don't come from the ICC (or just repeat their figures). Some of the claimed viewership figures (e.g. the 2.2 Billion watching the 2011 final) are pre-game marketing numbers. The 2019 ICC releases also don't add up: this one claims 675 Million unique viewers of group stages, whilst this one claims 1.6 billion for the tournament. Spike 'em (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket so hopefully more people will come to help improve the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Tournament Summary section has at least 1 table too many : the final "Teams in World Cup" effectively duplicates content in "Teams' performance" Spike 'em (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. Likely going to be best to just remove the final "Teams in World Cup" table. Hog Farm Talk 14:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Work here seems to have stalled since Hog Farm’s post from April; I have added some cn tags that may help get things moving so the article won’t need to be submitted to WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spike 'em and Joseph2302: I am following up on these FA concerns, and I see that the citation needed templates are still in the article. Is anyone interested in fixing up the article, or should we prepare for this to go to WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With uncited sections still remaining, I am going to bring this to FAR in a couple weeks unless someone is willing to fix them up. Z1720 (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at similar sections in FIFA World Cup and Rugby World Cup and they seem to have the same issue of just quoting cumulative viewing figures from the sports governing body for a tournament in the past (2006 for football, 2007 for Rugby). The Rugby article does at least report that the figures are pretty meaningless! I did a search on google and can fid lots of lists of major sporting events, but can't find any from what I would consider a reliable source, or that states what figures it is using. This BBC article discusses it a bit but doesn't really lead to a solution!
I'll have a look into the other "citation needed" sections, the text they are next to doesn't seem to be too controversial / outlandish, so should hopefully find some for those with more ease! Spike 'em (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spike 'em: Were you able to look at the other cn concerns? Are you willing to work on this, or bring this to WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I've replaced all the {{cn}} with refs, in one case from the the linked main article. In the first case (first para of Qualification section), it only supports the second half of a sentence: if you think the first half needs a separate ref, then let me know and I will see what I can do. Also, I feel the "hosts knocked out in first round" statement could do with reworking, as the format of the tournament has changed every couple of editions, so the performances are not directly comparable. Spike 'em (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spike 'em: If a citation at the end of a sentence does not support everything preceding it, then another citation is needed to verify the remaining unverified info. I suggest finding another source, removing the information, or putting a citation needed tag half way through the sentence, after the information that is not verified. Z1720 (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spike 'em: I see that most of your edits to the article are reversions. Are you still interested in addressing the uncited text, or should this go to WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protection suggestion

I suggest adding protection to prevent any acts of vandalism EsTuHabil (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TROPHY PICS I

wheres the trophy at? Pharaoh496 (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be a copyright free version of it. Iirc at least three copyright violations have been uploaded with the claim that a picture of the trophy on some grass was someone's "own work". I suspect we'd be better off not having one if this is the standard - unfortunately a major problem in some circles by the looks of it (I noticed the same problem with some photos of stadiums as well) Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thats a bit odd aint it? its been there for ages i reckon, cant someone upload a new picture properly? icc has made that wc pic public Pharaoh496 (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Find us an open source version of the file then. Or creative commons. I don't think a fair use rationale will work here. You find the image and I'll check it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
search "cricket wc trophy" on google and click images. you will find the latest wc pic everywhere. that can be cropped and used, since its on icc's website also Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And one of them are open source and I can't find one that's suitable that's creative commons. Everything else you're finding through Google is copyright. It doesn't need to say that it is, but unless you can source an actual open source or creative commons image we can't use it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2527112 found'em Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion - it's an obvs crop of an obvs copyvio Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
damn it - someone really is dedicated for the cup to not be on wikipedia Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TROPHY PICS II

A proper trophy pic is needed for the page. This one isnt previewing Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wales as a host

Honest question here: if Wales does not have its own Cricket Board, with Welsh players and teams being affiliated to the English Board, why does it count as a host for 1983, 1999 and 2019? The way I see it, the mere fact that games were played in Wales is not enough; otherwise, the hosts for 2007 should be Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Trinidad and Tobago. BLOGuil (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2023

I would like to change the highest culmulative scorer in Cricket World Cup, as it is now Virat Kohli (India), as stated here: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/virat-kohli-world-cup-runs-sachin-tendulkar-b2428275.html. Also, the total amount of runs in CWC of Virat Kohli stated there is outdated. It is actually: 2311 + 16 + 103 + 95 + 88 + 101 + 51 + 117 = 2882 runs. Scthecool (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've solved this by removing both parameters that deal with individual statistics from the infobox. As I understand it, these are designed for use on an individual edition's infobox, not for something that occurs as frequently as this Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2023

AUSTRALIA IS THE WINNER 2409:40C4:139:6CF0:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Tournament records in Cricket World Cup page

If you had so much problem with no reference and you think it's not that a difficult job, why not do it yourself. Cric editor (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"2035 Cricket World Cup" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2035 Cricket World Cup has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 24 § 2035 Cricket World Cup until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"2031 Cricket World Cup qualification" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2031 Cricket World Cup qualification has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 23 § 2031 Cricket World Cup qualification until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 March 2025

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: Moved. (non-admin closure) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– Removal of "ICC" to be consistent with the parent article. Vestrian24Bio 12:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: one proposal, ICC World Cup Qualifier → Cricket World Cup Qualifier, was removed from this list, because it was redirected to the new proposed title. And redirects are ineligible to be current titles in move requests. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored it now, as it was a cut and paste move, that has been reverted now. Vestrian24Bio 05:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Cricket has been notified of this discussion. Vestrian24Bio 12:55, 12 March 2025 (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.

@Jeffrey34555: more than half of these haven't been moved yet.. Vestrian24Bio 03:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange, I posted a technical request for all of these. I guess I'll just move them myself, give that I now have the necessary permissions. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Vestrian24Bio 03:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. All the pages should be moved now. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 June 2025

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. per WP:COMMONNAME and discussion (non-admin closure) Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 08:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– "Cricket World Cup" refers to both men's and women's events and there sources which refer to the T20 World Cups as Cricket World Cup as well. So, this is the most appropriate WP:NATURAL disambiguation. Vestrian24Bio 10:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 11:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Until 2019, the official name was "ICC Cricket World Cup"; while from 2023 onwards the ICC renamed it to "ICC Men's Cricket World Cup". So, this name change should only be made articles after the 2019 event to avoid WP:SYNTH. (I will add details about the cut-off below soon.) Vestrian24Bio 10:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Cricket has been notified of this discussion. Vestrian24Bio 10:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestrian24Bio Support all other moves except the Cricket World Cup page, as even in the case of FIFA World Cup the same name is retained citing popularity and branding. What do you say @Vestrian24Bio Editking100 (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because FIFA has never changed its name, and even the Hockey World Cup includes the word "Men's". I wonder why the Rugby World Cup removed it from its title. ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Editking100: "FIFA World Cup" is the OFFICIALNAME as well, but here it's "ICC Men's Cricket World Cup" since 2023 edition, and no need for ICC as Cricket is already there and adding Men's for disambiguation with Women's Cricket World Cup. Vestrian24Bio 13:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestrian24Bio agreed, but please link or redirect Cricket World Cup to this page too, as many users may land up from that. Editking100 (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Editking100 what do you mean by redirect? Vestrian24Bio 13:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestrian24Bio I mean after you create the Men's CWC wikipage, kindly redirect the CWC wikipage to the former. Got me? Editking100 (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the Cricket World Cup title to redirect at the new page you create... Editking100 (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Editking100 That will be done by the RM closer themselves, no worries! Vestrian24Bio 13:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestrian24Bio Okay that works... Also remember that user you reverted multiple times for putting unofficial logos and altering infobox images previously with (Bengali name) as username I have found multiple disruptive activities by him, not only in cricket/sports but in other field pages too. Look at the ANI discussion for the case.
(This is just to inform you (as you too came accross his work), and does not serve any other purpose, let the admins do their work on ANI as per themselves.)
Thank you. Cheers.. Editking100 (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess.. Vestrian24Bio 15:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Nom Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, ICC changed the name to be gender neutral, and they changed all names.ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]
It is best this page is moved to 2023 Men’s Cricket World Cup to avoid confusion between the Women’s world cup but people anyways give attention to the men’s one more. Hamdaan Abid (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME There is no real ambiguity when 'Cricket World Cup' is not qualified. A search for 'Cricket World Cup' should lead to the largest tournament of that name (this one).
Any claimed ambiguity is purely a technical one. Hardly anyone in the cricket-watching world who is searching for or interested in this topic will be surprised or confused to find 'Cricket World Cup' redirect to this rather than the Women's or T20 version, which are qualified as such in both speech and writing (and can be included in a hatnote).
ICC may adopt specific brands for organisational purposes, but the popular name for this competition is 'the Cricket World Cup' (or better yet, 'the World Cup'--which is unworkable here but speaks to the universal understanding in the cricket-watching world of which tournament is the one that needs no qualifier).
The debate comes down ultimately to what the World Cup is--a marketable product owned by the ICC like a brand of soap, or a beloved competition that has become a cultural festival for fans, eagerly awaited and emotionally celebrated? If sport as a shared and shaped experience matters, the commonly accepted name of this tournament can stand over the peculiarities of the corporate brand. That's why WP:COMMONNAME exists, isn't it? Manosij.m (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cricket World Cup page will redirect to Men’s Cricket World Cup page only. Not to Women’s. It’s about the title of the page. It should be consistent with Men’s / Women’s T20 World Cup pages and is also the name of the tournament in logos press releases hashtags etc.. 2409:4055:2DB4:3E24:41C4:7F4E:AA92:DE2A (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Details on cut-off:

Last instance to retain the current name First instance of new name
Men's Cricket World Cup 2019 Cricket World Cup 2023 Men's Cricket World Cup
Men's Cricket World Cup qualification N/a 2023 Men's Cricket World Cup qualification
World Cricket League 2017–2019 World Cricket League N/a
Men's Cricket World Cup Super League N/a 2020–2023 Men's Cricket World Cup Super League
Men's Cricket World Cup League 2 N/a 2019–2023 Men's Cricket World Cup League 2
Men's Cricket World Cup Challenge League N/a 2019–2022 Men's Cricket World Cup Challenge League
Men's Cricket World Cup Challenge League Play-off N/a 2024 Men's Cricket World Cup Challenge League Play-off
Men's Cricket World Cup Qualifier play-off N/a 2023 Men's Cricket World Cup Qualifier Play-off
Men's Cricket World Cup Qualifier 2018 Cricket World Cup Qualifier 2023 Men's Cricket World Cup Qualifier

Vestrian24Bio 2 16:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Cricket has been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 12:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Per official tournament name and for neutrality purposes. Claiming that it does not need Men's added to the name, despite the official name clearly stating the gender distinction, is a clear sign of misogyny. The tournaments are the Men's and the Women's Cricket World Cup. Both tournaments need to have the gender distinction for neutrality and also because the official names have been so for around two years. Would have been debatable if ICC hadn't changed the names to be inclusive but they have, thankfully. Also, consistency basis, since the T20 World Cup pages have already incorporated what is required. OCDD (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This vote ignores WP:COMMONNAME for WP:OFFICIALNAME. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cricket World Cup is not the common name for only the men's tournament. The upcoming 2025 WC is also being called Cricket World Cup commonly, even though it's the women's edition and not the men's edition. OCDD (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so we then need to consider if "Cricket World Cup" has a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to decide if we need a disambiguation page (which no-one has suggested yet) or if we can keep the page as is and have a hatnote to inform readers they may be in the wrong place. I believe the men's version is the clear PT, so support keeping the status quo. Spike 'em (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC,

While Wikipedia has no single criterion for defining a primary topic, two major aspects that editors commonly consider are these:

  • A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
  • A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
Vestrian24Bio 16:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think neither of this would conclude with Men's event as a PT. Vestrian24Bio 16:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, those are the criteria I was using when I said that the Men's WC is the clear PT. Spike 'em (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how CWC would be the PTOPIC to Men's CWC post-move, because the men's sports events are more popular in general, and due the historical asymmetry in the nomenclature of the two events. I have no strong opinions on it redirecting to the Men's events, or it being a disambiguation page. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close: Per this Google trends search hits report, changing this to the Men's CWC term as against just CWC would be against the coverage of the term used widely [[2]]

Clearly no hits and a flat line when the Men's term is included in the start with oppose to the most popular common name Cricket World Cup. Even when the official name was changed including Men's in 2023, it still recieved no popularity among searchers during the 23 edition. So we can't override this citing official name. Even the relevant sources including the cricket websites, news coverage (links provided above) also use the CWC term. Also, one more such instance is the use of ODI for men and WODI for women by ICC. We can't change that with inclusion of M in the start citing WP:NATURAL. The same goes for the usage of T20I and WT20I, Test cricket and Women's Test cricket, both as official and common names. Editking100 (talk) 17:05, 01 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google trends do not decide the naming of a page. Men's T20 World Cup adapted and so will Men's Cricket World Cup. Wikipedia is a neutral and inclusive space. And the official tournament names also include clear distinctions for both genders instead of assuming the men's tournament is primary. OCDD (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They absolutely can help decide article titles. You seem to be ignoring WP:COMMONNAME. Spike 'em (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred Spike 'em (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why does everyone seem to forget WP:COMMONNAME here? Neutrality and inclusivity has nothing to do with it! --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 23:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WellThisIsTheReaper True. Completely agree with you. IndicInsaan (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: IndicInsaan was previously known as Editking100 and has been blocked for sockpuppetry. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 22:21, 10 July 2025 (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.

Move from Cricket World Cup to Men's ODI Cricket World Cup

Requested move 17 February 2026

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket World Cup → Men's ODI Cricket World Cup – To distinguish between T20 format and ODI formats as well, please discuss this in the following Globetrotter30 (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It is indeed confusing to use the term. It can easily be misinterpreted and doesn't clearly distinguish between ODI and T20 World Cups. ~2026-10831-34 (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a T20 Cricket World Cup: by adding ODI, you could distinguish between them. Globetrotter30 (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's a guideline for naming pages, you can't just add the words you prefer. Vestrian24Bio 14:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It would be consistent with Men's T20 World Cup. By adding ODI for One Day International you can distinguish between the different formats for the cwc. Just saying.
Thanks, Globetrotter30 (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are 5 criteria listed at AT, your suggestion possibly meets 2 of them, but the current title definitely meets the other 3. It is also the recognisable COMMONNAME of the subject, which usually carries the most weight. <flippant>The Cricket World Cup is the OG of international limited overs cricket tournaments whereas the T20 World Cup is a jonny-come-lately which changed its name to mimic it a few years ago.</flippant> Spike 'em (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we go past the COMMONNAME, it's also the PRIMARYTOPIC with the historical significance. Vestrian24Bio 15:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The T20 World Cup is called the T20 World Cup for a reason. Regardless of that, the 50 over/ODI tournament is called the World Cup by ICC because it is the main event. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
YeedyYaada (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2026 (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.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cricket_World_Cup