Talk:2014 ICC Awards

Requested move 17 June 2020

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 as proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

---

• 2014 LG ICC Awards → 2014 ICC Awards
• 2013 LG ICC Awards → 2013 ICC Awards
• 2012 LG ICC Awards → 2012 ICC Awards
• 2011 LG ICC Awards → 2011 ICC Awards
• 2010 LG ICC Awards → 2010 ICC Awards
• 2009 LG ICC Awards → 2009 ICC Awards

– Remove sponsor name, as we don't usually use sponsor names on cricket articles on Wikipedia (examples: Sophia Gardens (cricket ground), Old Trafford Cricket Ground, Twenty20 Cup). No benefit to having sponsor name in this articles. If there are other years that include sponsor name, please include them in this RM. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The sponsor can be mentioned in the lead, if it's important. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. ~SS49~ {talk} 12:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because LG Electronics acquired the naming rights prior to the 2009 ceremony. Practically all of the citations on those respective pages refer to the 2009–2014 ceremonies above as the LG ICC Awards, which is the main reason I believe the current titles should remain. The naming rights deal ended after the 2015 Cricket World Cup, per the first citation on the 2009 ceremony page. The 2009–2012 articles also include the ceremony logo, which is another reason it makes sense to keep the titles as they are. — 29cwcst (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• We have many articles with logos with sponsor names but article titles without sponsor names, so not an issue. And the Wikipedia cricket local consensus is to remove sponsor names, because we're not an advertising platform for companies. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• We're not advertising for LG Electronics here, their logo just happens to be a part of the logo that pertains to the 2009–2012 ceremonies. The sponsorship deal between LG and the International Cricket Council (ICC) ended more than 5 years ago, so it's been a while since LG was last advertised by international cricket's governing body. Besides, the ICC were the ones advertising for LG anyway, not us. Advertising and endorsements aside, we create articles on noteworthy subjects/topics using reliable, accurate and unbiased information that is completely neutral. This proposal will simply make the articles inferior. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see why we need the logos anyway, picture of the winner like other years seems much better anyway. And logos and official names aren't reasons to keep this name. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well then, what are you going to use the logos for instead? If you want to deliberately keep this resource in subpar condition, I can't help you here. Simply put, I'm not wasting valuable time arguing my point against these ridiculous guidelines. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well every year except those four use a photo of the winner, which is far more sensible in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• I understand that, but you can't think of anywhere/anything else that would see you use the logos? — 29cwcst (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support moving the 2015 ceremony page to an article with no such redirect though, because that is actually beneficial. — 29cwcst (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• The 2015 article wasn't directly relevant to this article so was removed. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Of course it was. At the very least, could you remove/delete the 2015 LG ICC Awards redirect? The 2015 ceremony was never sponsored by LG, therefore it shouldn't exist in any capacity or form. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• That's a completely different request. We're talking about moving articles, and that is for removing redirects, which needs a redirect discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• I tried asking for its deletion, but my request was turned down. Alternatively, I thought if I could reach consensus here, then I could actually get that redirect deleted. Are you on board with this proposal or not? — 29cwcst (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2020 (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.