Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

[Removed] Proposed removal: Men's Olympic Ice Hockey final[edit]

Removed, but this doesn't prevent nomination of the event during the next Olympics, to be assessed on its merits rather than as an ITNR event. BencherliteTalk 09:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

In light of the recent announcement by the National Hockey League that it will not participate in the upcoming 2018 Olympics,[1] and thus result in not featuring some of "the best players" in the world, I would like to take a survey on whether the Men's Olympic Ice Hockey final should remain here on ITNR. To review some of the related discussions:

  • A 2013 discussion that was never closed.
  • The nomination to add the 2014 final to ITN was unsuccessful, and was archived with no consensus.
  • A 2014 discussion that ended with no consensus. And as I mentioned in that prior 2014 discussion, if the National Hockey League declines "to send 'the best players'" (which they have now done), the Olympics teams will then comprise of amateurs or players from other leagues. Then, "Some of these subjective arguments that "it's the most premier ice hockey tournament" will become even more subjective. At least the IIHF World Championships will always have some NHL players (from those teams eliminated from playoff contention)".

Again, we should not single out one Olympic sport over all the others, regardless if it may be the "most watched" or "most important" event. This point was made very clear on ITN/C when the Rio Olympics was going on last year:

  • The nominations of the 2016 Women's 100 metres and Men's 100 metres were rejected. The one who closed that discussion wrote, "This is why we have Ongoing and why the Olympics are listed".[2]
  • Nominations for separate Olympic records was also rejected.[3][4][5] The common reason was, again, the link on the Ongoing line.
  • A notice was then posted at the top of WP:ITN/C,[6] warning that such future nominations would likely be WP:SNOW rejected, referencing the previous failed nominations and the Ongoing link.
  • Since the Ongoing links were frequently cited in the above points, it should be noted that it was not proposed until April 2014, two months after the Olympics. After a trial, Ongoing became permanent around May 2014 (per discussion).

So to sum up, we now have the Ongoing links to list the Olympic chronological summaries articles, and we have the precedent of what we did last year in not singling out one particular Olympics event. And now we have the National Hockey League announcing that its best players will not go to the Olympics, leaving many of the teams like Canada and the U.S. likely left with just amateurs -- which then raises doubts on if it should still be considered the "most watched" or "most important" event when compared to figure skating or another winter sport. And in fact, AFAIK, no concrete evidence has ever been presenting yet that clearly establishes that ice hockey is the "most watched" or "most important" Winter Olympics event over figure skating or the others. Thoughts? Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose You can't make any decision until closer to the Olympics. The situation might change and this is still the most important event for ice hockey. This is not about singling out an event. It just so happens that the sports most important event is the Olympics. LordAtlas (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
"The sports most important event is the Olympic" could be said about any sport, figure skating, you name it. If we go by that simple argument, all the other finals and gold medals in the other Olympic sports should be posted, not just men's ice hockey. That is why there was major opposition in 2014 to actually get in on ITN, despite being listed here on ITNR. And why a warning notice was posted last year, basically not to single out one event.[7] As to why I'm doing this discussion now instead of closer to January? Curiosity. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Until there are no NHLers on the final rosters, most obviously for Canada and the US, nothing has changed other than Bettman has made a statement that can still change. LordAtlas (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
That does not change the other major argument: No Olympic event should be singled out on ITNR. All the other Olympic events can, and are usually considered, as you stated, "The sports most important event is the Olympics". Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Support Removal - as the nominator notes, the Winter Olympics will be an 'ongoing' event and it will be odd to highlight a single final for a blurb. 'Ongoing' was not a feature when this was added to ITNR, so this changes the situation significantly. --LukeSurl t c 07:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove per LukeSurl. It's not clear currently that the most important event in the Winter Olympics is men's ice hockey, and it's certainly not the case that only in men's ice hockey is the Olympics the most important event (even if that is true) - it certainly seems that way in skeleton (spot) for example. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove only because the best players may not necessarily be there, given the decision of the NHL to not stop its season for the Olympics. I think it merits being singled out for the other reasons I've stated before(which I won't repeat here) but only if the best players are there. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep for all the reasons I articulated in the 2014 discussion (I won't repeat them here). However, it may be worth adding a caveat to the ITNR entry that this will be posted only if NHL players participate. If NHL players are there, it's the top international ice hockey tournament and should therefore be posted. If Bettman continues to act like a toddler holding on to his toys, then the standard will be seriously lower and roughly equivalent to the IIHF World Championship, so there isn't a reason to favour it. At this stage we simply don't know what will happen - it could well be sabre-rattling in order to drive a deal. There are also several players who have indicated that they will compete in the Olympics even if the NHL asks them to not to - it's possible that NHL players will end up there even if the league disapproves. Given that that is all that has changed since the 2014 discussion, there's no reason to overturn it. Modest Genius talk 12:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The NHL has already stated they will not participate in the Olympics and that the matter is closed [8], hence my statement above. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
a) That might not actually stop players going, despite league disapproval; b) The NHL has a history of ruling things out and then doing them anyway (taking over the Coyotes, for example); c) That only applies to 2018. Modest Genius talk 13:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough- but even if a few players ignore the NHL, the league's decision will likely suppress the number of players who go, reducing the caliber of the tournament. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove: Seems to be one of a very, very Olympic events that's an ITNR. We don't have the 100 meters, the decathlon or the marathon as recurring, we should not have this either. pbp 13:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: While I think this should be removed for another reason, the reason this is singled out and not the 100 meters is that the 100 meters at the Olympics is not of a higher stature than 100 meters non-Olympic competitions. In Olympic years, the men's ice hockey tournament has a greater stature than the world championship because the best players(until this year) did not participate in the world championships, but did in the Olympics. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Badminton World championship are cancelled in Olympic years, so all best players can play in the Olympics. Why not single Badminton out too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.118.38.52 (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Ice hockey is far more popular than badminton and badminton is at a far larger event (the summer Olympics are much larger than the Winter). Also, there is a difference between not holding a world championship in an Olympic year(which several sports do) and a professional league declining to allow its players (who have signed contracts) to go. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Reluctant remove. I like the idea of having an event as a focal point for the Winter Olympics, but unlike the 100m it's questionable whether a Winter Olympics held outside of US or Canada has such a focal point (in a US or Canadian Olympics we should post it through a normal ITNC nomination, which would pass due to it being easy to demonstrate that the event was receiving coverage and interest which dwarfed everything else). In particular, I oppose any solution which has a clause dependent on whether NHL players participate. There is the question of whether such a clause indicates systemic bias. But more to the point, if the notability of what we are arguing is the most important event is dependent on whether NHL players participate, then we have answered our own question about whether it is more notable than the other events – it would derive notability due to a combination of past prestige and from having participants from one domestic league which was more notable than the competition under discussion. Not unlike the relationship between the Premier League and FA Cup. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove It was already difficult to justify singling this out from every other Olympic event, many of which are also the biggest events in their sport and some of which (e.g. the 100m sprints) get greater international attention. This announcement seals it. Neljack (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this is ready for an admin to asses consensus, as there has been no new comments for almost 3 weeks. Thryduulf (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


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.

[Closed (kept)] Proposed removal: Indian Premier League[edit]

No consensus whatsoever to remove. Stephen 03:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

Indian Premier League is a domestic cricket league. There was a discussion for ITN/R listing in 2010 but it faced opposition. It was then added to ITN/R in 2011 solely because "India is undercovered" and is "a country of 1 billion people", which seems to be a flawed logic. By that logic, every regular event that happens in China should be ITN/R.

I'm not sure it is notable enough. Sorry, we can't go posting the domestic T20 leagues in every major cricket-playing nation. If we keep India's equivalent then we would also have to post/add those in Australia (Big Bash League), Pakistan (Pakistan Super League), England (NatWest t20 Blast) and maybe the West Indies (Caribbean Premier League) too, all of which are just as high-level and prestigious. I don't see why the IPL is more notable than the others. If this is continued to be posted, it will open the floodgates for at least five stories a year.

Proposing the removal from ITN/R only. Not intended to prevent it from being posted pending consensus to do so, following a nomination at WP:ITNC. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep IPL is more prestigious than those noted above. One ITNR listing does not open floodgates for "at least five stories a year" at all. In fact, in a way it's the opposite, because you can currently say "IPL was only posted because it was ITNR". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Proof ??? Prestigious means "inspiring respect and admiration". I doubt it has that after the 2012 Indian Premier League spot-fixing case and the 2013 Indian Premier League spot-fixing and betting case. Prestigious also means "having high status", which again it lacks because it still is a domestic cricket league like the rest.
Besides per ITN Criteria, candidates are evaluated on "the significance of the developments".- Mfarazbaig (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
So it isn't opening the floodgates then? I'm not following your arguments at all I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Article quality is regularly up-to-snuff, competition has a high level of interest. --Jayron32 12:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the other T20 leagues simply don't get the international coverage because they aren't as high-level or prestigious, and the floodgates haven't opened for other T20 leagues since this has been on ITNR. BencherliteTalk 12:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sadly, comments like "high level of interest" don't satisfy the notability significance question. PSL which was ITNC, wasn't posted despite getting international coverage in addition to, in The Diplomat here and here, in Bloomberg and in NYT for whatever reasons. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    This is a decision on whether an item remains ITNR. There isn't a "notability question", as that's satisfied by the existence of the articles. That the community decided not to post the PSL should satisfy you that the floodgates haven't opened. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    1) Significance is assessed by interest. This has high interest, so it is significant. 2) Other articles, when not posted, are usually not posted because the quality of the article. If you want a different article to be posted, you should clean up that article then nominate it. The posting, or not posting, of another article can happen for any number of reasons, most of which are probably not applicable to this discussion, which is why other articles are irrelevant. --Jayron32 13:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    1) PSL also generated high interest despite not making it to the Main Page (see comparison). 2) It wasn't the 'quality of the article' but the floodgate argument that prevented the PSL's blurb making it to the Main Page. The other articles are very much relevant since the floodgate (read: other articles) argument was used in PSL's ITNC. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    The errors of the past do not justify their continuation merely by their own existence. --Jayron32 04:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral – This may be somewhat of an English-language bias on the English Wikipedia (as happens quite often with British and American news as well), though it is clear that this league is of interest to a huge number of people (simply because of India's population). I think that this league's international coverage speaks for itself, but it's also important to compare it with other national leagues. Various soccer leagues completed in the past two weeks (including English, German, Dutch, Spanish, and Italian, if I'm not mistaken). How do all of these compare? I have no idea. I'm not really interested in sports, but seeing as we have so many leagues ending simultaneously, I wonder if we could balance this all out. ~Mable (chat) 12:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep As identified, IPL gains international coverage, and interested WP editors appear to keep these articles up to date each year. If any of the other T20 leagues had similar annual metrics (wide international coverage and quality articles shortly after the event was complete) then we can discuss adding those. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have the following 4 arguments:
i. Adding IPL to ITN/R in 2011 solely because "India is undercovered" and is "a country of 1 billion people" was a flawed logic as stated above.
Not relevant, community consensus was what enabled it to be elected to ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
ii. The floodgate argument. The same people countering it here, should also have done so when it was presented in response to PSL ITNC. If this is an invalid argument then decide to never allow it to be used against any ITNC again.
Not at all, anyone can use any argument they believe in at any ITNC nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
iii. Everyone is talking about the 'international coverage' but no one has provided it here. It's 2017 now, things have changed since 2011. Many new domestic cricket leagues have emerged since. IPL's being 'In the News' needs to be established.
IPL has massive coverage, we even have live radio coverage of every match in the UK. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
iv. If its about cricket then ICC Champions Trophy can take its place. And IPL can battle it out on ITNC instead of being a ITN/R. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Nothing needs to take its place if the community decides against its inclusion in ITNR. They can both be ITNRs if the community agrees that the ICC Champions Trophy is also worth including. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. From the article: "The IPL is the most-attended cricket league in the world and ranks sixth among all sports leagues." (Major League Baseball is 7th for comparison [9], it is broadcast to 16 countires plus the "Arab World" and "sub-Saharan Africa" and on the internet. It is undoubtedly the most significant T20 competition in the world, indeed the most significant cricket competition by some measures (The Ashes is undoubtedly more prestigious though). Looking at all the objective measures it's clear that it is significant enough to post every year, and the track record of article quality is excellent so I see no justification for removal. If you wish to see the ICC Champions Trophy or any other event on ITN/R then propose it - it isn't a one in one out system. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Can we just call this like it is? A Pakistani user is upset the Indian league is posted while the Pakistani league isn't. That's what this is about. This is ITN/R because of interest and quality. LordAtlas (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Look, I'd love to get rid of this. The IPL and Twenty20 generally are both circus acts. Ideally we would have the taste to ignore it. But that's my subjective opinion. Clearly there are many people in the world who lap this rubbish up. The IPL is certainly in a different category from the other domestic Twenty20 leagues, as a number of editors cogently explain above. So much so that it can hardly be described as "domestic". There is absolutely no problem with having it as ITN/R while others miss out.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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.

ITNR sports nominated for "ongoing" (and usually failing)[edit]

As this comes up every so often, I boldly added a few words about this here, and have linked five discussions (there may be more) in which an ITNR sporting event was nominated for the "ongoing" slot without success, and noted that Olympics / Football World Cup are exceptions. Improvement (including further links) / discussion welcome. BencherliteTalk 17:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Applause. Not guaranteeing it'll stop anything, but, nevertheless, applause. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a note on wording that I think the Olympics were part of the reason to craft Ongoing, to avoid several sports-related stories over a two week period (eg Ongoing by design was specifically to provide a proper way to present the Olympics, it wasn't so much the Olympics got added after the fact). --MASEM (t) 18:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
You may well be right, but I can't immediately find a discussion in the archives about adding the "ongoing" section... BencherliteTalk 18:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Initial point that I can find (of the most recent iteration, there was stuff back in 2006, apparently, particularly with the Olmypics that were stickied to the box). Another useful discussion is after the trial run here. Both Olympics and World Cup come up there. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Remove: G20 summits[edit]

This year's summit has received short shrift at ITNC so it's time we reviewed its place at ITNR given it was added by virtue of a discussion in 2011. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Remove if something notable comes from such dinner parties, we can add it via ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove - given the way this year's summit was handled, I see no reason to leave it on ITNR. As you correctly assert, anything really important can be suggested as a blurb at ITNC anyway. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove per nominator. If something notable happens it can be handled at ITN/C like with any other conference. I opposed the proposed blurb this year because it left we wondering "so what?" and nobody was able to come up with anything (until it ended a couple of days later, and even that was of disputed accuracy) other than "It's on ITN/R" which doesn't help readers in the slightest. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove since this doesn't prevent listing through ITNC, it just removes a free pass that is no longer warranted as Thryduulf has shown. BencherliteTalk 09:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove for reasons given above, not every G20 is something of interest. But I do wonder if we need something within INTR that is "Usually is posted if some interesting element happens", in the case of g20, some type of new agreement between all g20's or the like. I'm not sure how many other elements would be similar to this, but this would at least keep mention of g20 on this page, not as an ITNR but that we do watch for any interesting results to happen. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Good idea. Such an "Events to watch for news stories" list would fit nicely with the upcoming ITN/R events that Fuebaey posts to WT:ITN every 3 months. The recently removed from ITN/R E3 expo would fit nicely on that list, as would I suspect several other major industry events and inter-government conferences. Thryduulf (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I would support remove as it stands now, absent some sort of formal list as Masem suggests. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose to removal: why should it be removed? It is very notable, of high significance, of global nature, affects many worldwide and typically gets much press coverage. No reason to remove. If you don't like the summit or what comes out of them that wouldn't be reason to remove this from ITN/R. This is not some dinner party of some random people on random issues. --Fixuture (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    The fact that the merits are in dispute by many people is enough reason to remove this, and allow the usual ITNC process to determine if it is posted- or see below regarding Masem's idea. 331dot (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    Only at some G20 summits does something significant happen. When something significant does happen, it can be nominated at ITNC and (subject to article quality) I will very likely support, but I don't think "they're meeting"/"they met" is ITN worthy on its own, which is all we had this time, so an automatic pass for notability is not warranted. Thryduulf (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal this annual gathering of heads of state generates copious media coverage. I don't see anything in WP:ITN#Purpose about featuring stories we think are important, but I do see something about featuring content people would be looking for because it's "In the news". This years G20 article wasn't up to MP quality, but that's no reason to strike it from ITN/R. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Recurring events of interest[edit]

Following from the above entry on removing the G20 entry, with acknowledging that if something interesting happens a normal ITNC can happen, I'd like to propose a list of similar events that are on a short list of events that we do consider important (we don't beg their place in the big picture) but that we only post if something significant happens. An INTC involving these events should not question the recurring event's notability, but only if the result of that current event itself is ITN-worthy (plus article quality, etc.)

For example, no one seems to deny that the G20 meetings are fundamentally important, but they also more often than not are a lot of promises and commitments but no significant actions taken. Once in a while a G20 event will lead to a world-changing issue, and that's when we should post. Similarly, tradeshows like Electronic Entertainment Expo and Consumer Electronics Show normally don't have that much buzz but once in a while new lines of products are released that grab a great deal of press attention. There's probably various things like other G8 meetings, UN Security Council meetings, and other trade shows that would fall under this. Probably a number of awards and sporting events too that aren't listed at ITNR.

To handle these, these should be in a list that designates the recurring event as one that we recognize as important, but that the recurrence is not automatic to post as an ITNR entry would be. This would focus the discussion on whether the specific result from the event is considered important, as well as article quality and update, of course. The newsworthiness of the recurring event should not be the subject of discussion to avoid wasting time (as the most recent G20 ITNC has had). As to what to actually call this, I have no good simple name, outside of "events of interest". --MASEM (t) 14:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you envision this as a separate page, or as an additional but separate section of the ITNR list? 331dot (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
A short list at the end of ITNR (so its all maintained in one place). I don't expect this list to be as exhaustive as the current ITNR list. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
That's what I thought, I just wasn't sure. That makes sense to me. 331dot (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
This is a good idea. ITN/R could be described as "always notable, always significant" and the new list as "always notable, significance varies". Thryduulf (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I think any notable outcome of a particular G-whatever summit or other major meeting already falls under the scope of normal ITN, so there's no need to prepare any list. For example, if a certain G summit agrees on carbon emission reduction, this most likely would be posted anyway. Brandmeistertalk 20:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Firm support - good idea, good implementation. I'd be game. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Cross post WT:ITN/R discussions to WT:ITN[edit]

Minor procedural thing here but it might be helpful to post a notice at WT:ITN whenever a new section is added to WT:ITN/R. If there was ever a haunt for the "regulars" it's this talk page. Lets try to get some more participation. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
As long as it's clear that its a link to a discussion on that page rather than a discussion itself (so as to keep it all in one place) then go ahead. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Why not have all "ITNR" discussions at the ITN talk page, and make this a redirect, in the same way that the talk page of ITNC redirects to the main ITN talk page? That way all discussions on all ITN topics are centralised. BencherliteTalk 14:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
That's probably the simplest option. The combined activity of both of these talk pages wouldn't be burdensome, and the same people are likely to be interested in both. --LukeSurl t c 16:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd also support a merge of the discussion pages. --Jayron32 17:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I see no issue with merging pages, we may need to make sure the archives of the merged ones are easy to search. --MASEM (t) 18:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
We just add something like this to the top of the ITN talk page:
BencherliteTalk 21:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea. Just make sure that all open discussions are closed or moved (with notification for participants) when the merge is done. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I prefer to keep the talk pages separate, as they're really different topics. It's not overly onerous for interested editors to put two pages onto their watchlists. There doesn't seem to be a problem here, so no need for a change. Modest Genius talk 14:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed addition: Women's Cricket World Cup[edit]

Considering the near-unanimous support the recent nomination got at ITN/C, I assume we can add this once-every-four-year event to ITN/R > Sports > Cricket > One-day tournaments without controversy? --LukeSurl t c 11:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support no brainer. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Major international tournament. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This event's importance and media coverage have grown significantly over the years and it should definitely be added.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support While there are other sports where due to lack of worldwide attention on the women's side (ala WNBA finals) this one definitely has a larger amount of attention and importance. --MASEM (t) 13:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support deservedly front page news in the UK and elsewhere, which is truly astonishing considering how women's cricket has been regarded in the past. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per the above and my comments on the recent nomination. I oppose automatic adding of every women's event not held simultaneously with the directly equivalent men's event (and vice versa), as not all are equally significant but the cricket world cups are. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Women's cricket has hugely gained in profile, coverage and popular interest over the last decade, to the point where I think this competition reaches the general standard we should apply to all sporting events. Happy to see this listed. Other women-only events should continue to be nominated and considered on their own merits, not inherited from the men's competition in their sport. Modest Genius talk 14:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)