Template:Did you know nominations/Cricket at the 2022 Commonwealth Games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Cricket at the 2022 Commonwealth Games

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 11:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC).

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Red XN - ?
  • Interesting: Green tickY
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg This is a neat and timely little article that is long enough, new enough and well referenced. The hook is good, but my only concern is that it is not directly cited in any of the references. Yes you can pretty well deduce, indirectly, that there isn't going to be a men's competition, but I couldn't explicitly source that fact. My sense is that it's self-evident and we should let it through, but I'd like a second opinion. Equally I'd be happy to look at an alternative hook. Bermicourt (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: The BBC source clearly says "Women's Twenty20 cricket". Last time I checked, that did mean cricket for women only so the hook is directly cited. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@The C of E:. I'm sorry; I obviously wasn't very clear. The fact that it's a women's competition is well cited. But the word "only" in the hook implies that there is no equivalent men's competition. That is the bit that's not explicitly stated as far as I can see, although one can easily surmise that, if there were a men's competition, it would have been mentioned somewhere. This may seem a bit nitpicky, but in my experience of the DYK process, reviewers are normally quite fussy about every part of the the hook being clearly cited and I don't want to pass this only to have the promoter fail it. Bermicourt (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
But it clearly says women's cricket, it would have stated if it was mens or they were having a tournament each for both sexes. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
If the hook just said that there will be women's cricket at the next CG, that would be fine. By using the word "only" it is emphasising that there will be women's cricket but not men's cricket. But none of the sources actually says "there will not a be men's cricket tournament" or such like. It's left unsaid. So, as I say, I'd just like another editor to confirm they are happy with that and I'll tick the box. Bermicourt (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, for DYK purposes. Unless a source can be provided that explicitly says "cricket in 2022 will be women's only" or a final, full list of sports for then are shown and used as a source, the hook can't be used. On the other hand, perhaps these alternatives could work? I based these on the same BBC source used to cite ALT0:
If ALT1 is to be used, the information has to be added though since it's in the source but not in the article. On the other hand, ALT2's hook fact is already mentioned in the article and cited, so it's a viable option. ALT3 is similar to the original hook except without the mention of the "only" part, and in my opinion, the mere existence of a women's cricket tournament is probably an interesting fact in itself. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
DEspite the fact the sources specifically state they are adding "WOMEN'S cricket" plus that it resulted in there being more women's sports than mens. If they were just adding cricket, it would have said so. I really do not understand how people cannot see this. (sigh), it's this sort of thing that makes me want to take a hiatus from DYK because all the fun of doing it is ruined by this sort of pernicketiness. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
If the point you want to say is that there will be women's cricket at the games, ALT3 remains a suitable alternative since it doesn't have sourcing issues. We're not doubting that the information at this point, it's just that no source explicitly saying it has been provided. Of course, considering the games are still a few years away from now, I'd presume that the list of games is still subject to change and there's a chance that they might add men's cricket after all, thus making ALT0 inaccurate, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Fine, do you want me to include a source for all the sports at the Gold Coast Commonwealths so we can see there was no cricket before, but for the next one they have included WOMEN'S cricket? That should be more than sufficient. And futhermore, the chance they may add men's cricket is WP:CRYSTAL and irrelevant to the current hook which reflects current facts. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Well as I said before, the fact about cricket being absent in previous games is already in the article and is mentioned in at least two different article sources, so I don't really see what's problematic about using that as a hook fact in this case. Meanwhile, I understand I'm about to contradict my earlier comments here, but I'd probably suggest against adding source for all the sports at the Gold Coast Commonwealths so we can see there was no cricket before, but for the next one they have included WOMEN'S cricket; other editors may consider that synthesis. Pinging Bermicourt for their thoughts as well. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The sources make clear that this is the first time women's cricket has been approved for the CG but none makes the point that there is no equivalent men's game. So we haven't solved the problem with the initial hook, but all the others look good. We could even beef up ALT3 as follows:
I'd be happy with any of those. Bermicourt (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
ALT4 sounds good to me. @The C of E: Would you be okay with Bermicourt's suggestion? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I have no qualms with either of ALT2 or ALT4, both covered in WP:RS (see, for example, this from Cricinfo). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Just go for ALT4, I really do not care any more. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg GTG then with ALT4. Bermicourt (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)