Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

CueTracker

Do we know why CueTracker is (supposedly) in the global blacklist? I keep encountering ugly warning templates that it is, yet links to it appear in articles, so it doesn't seem to be blacklisted. Is there something ineffably wrong with this site? I would think it's about on part with lots of them and at least usable as a primary source for non-controversial things. If it's fatally flawed, we need to hunt down citations to it, remove them, and replace them with citation needed tags or other sources (and remove the content cited to it if it's controversial).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  00:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Cuetracker has been added to the blacklist along with three other snooker fansites. There is a general accuracy problem that pertains not to just Cuetracker, but most of these snooker fansites. They don't even seem to be consistent on fairly fundamental statistics, such as century breaks. Just compare the list at http://cuetracker.net/statistics/centuries/most-made/all-time and the one at http://snookerinfo.webs.com/100centuries. Now, I have seen errors made here at Wikipedia propagated to Snooker.info so it seems to be the case that Snooker.info uses Wikipedia as a source. Cuetracker also seems to have perplexing inaccuracies. To take one glaring example, it has the now-retired Stephen Hendry listed on 772 century breaks, and Hendry's 775 century breaks used to be the world record, as documented by World Snooker, the BBC and Guinness World Records. If it is fluffing a recent world record what else is it getting wrong? There was a recent controversy at the Ronnie O'Sullivan article where CueTracker claimed that O'Sullivan was the game's highest earner, a claim contradicted by Eurosport. Now, Eurosport could be wrong but if a new prize money record has been set why is no-one else announcing it? It is generally accurate for match results but those can be sourced directly using the World Snooker data service. Generally I think it is a reasonable external link (kind of like how the film articles use IMDB) but I think it is definitely problematic as a source. Sure, Hendry isn't going to sue Wikipedia if we get his century count wrong but I don't think we should be feeding readers inaccurate statistical data if we can avoid it. Personally I think we should take a soft approach to this: the tags are annoying and some of the data we have sourced from these sites is probably inaccurate in some cases, but I don't think we need a major push to replace all these links. The data will be updated at some point and hopefully the blacklist will encourage editors to use reputable sources rather than rely on fansites. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me to be completely over the top. The usual "both feet first" style of User talk:Betty Logan. Personally I'm not convinced that the 4 sites mentioned are any more or less accurate than organisations/sites that Betty Logan would regard as respectable/accurate. High-handed approach where the most likely outcome is to drive editors away, which is surely not what wikipedia needs. Nigej (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The point of a blacklist is that it's a blacklist. If the site(s) are bad enough to be blacklisted, then remove them from articles. If they're good enough to keep in articles, then remove them from the blacklist. There's no point in us trying to carve out some kind of "greylist" for snooker; snooker isn't magically special [not in this way!] and doesn't have its own sourcing rules.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  10:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: I agree with you that the blacklisted data needs to be replaced/removed; all I am saying is that this will hopefully occur naturally over the next couple of months so there is no need to force the issue right now. The UK Championship starts next month which will be a good opportunity to update the articles with fresh up-to-date data. If we still have a problem after xmas then we will have to be more proactive about it. Betty Logan (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
That's true, but the problem is that, from the point of view of career centuries, everyone is in the category "greylist". I'm very doubtful that Clive Everton, the BBC and the rest of the press are any more accurate than the blacklisted sites. Who knows where their numbers come from? So if there's no authoritative source for career centuries we should remove them from the infobox and from eg Century break and shut up shop. Nigej (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
If we can't actually verify the information with RS then we shouldn't be offering it. If we have RS for it and non-RS for it and they conflict, we should be using the RS, and ignoring the non-RS, just as we would for any other claims in any other topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that many sources might be RS in some topic areas and non-RS in others. I would regard cuetracker as RS in its coverage of recent events but when it comes to career totals it is non-RS, as is everyone else. The black-and-white blacklist approach of saying a source is either entirely RS or entirely non-RS is clearly overly simplistic. Nigej (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Adding these websites to the blacklist is not the "usual both feet first style of User talk:Betty Logan", and I am disappointed to see Nigej mischaracterising my actions yet again. The issue with these websites has been going on for some time. There was an RFC at this very project page 18 months ago (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker/Archive_6#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS?) and the consensus was that these sites were being incorrectly used. The issue of the non-reliable nature of these sources was raised by another snooker editor at Talk:Ronnie_O'Sullivan#Referencing, were anonymous editors were edit-warring to usurp "reliable" sources such as Eurosport with these fansites. This isn't just limited to the O'Sullivan article, but has occurred at other snooker articles. I actually concede that some of these sites may be useful in some cases, hence the reason why there has been an 18 month gap between the RFC and the blacklist. Unfortunately editors have simply refused to use these fansites judiciously leaving us with few options. Now, who knows World Snooker and the BBC get their data from (and I suppose that applies to most of their output), but the point is they are considered reliable, and fansites are generally not. By the same token who knows where CueTracker gets their info from? The simplistic view here is that we can magically know when the data at sites such as CueTracker and Snooker.info is correct or incorrect. This may be possible for match results but not for career statistics that are aggregated over a player's entire career. We can never truly know when this data is correct or incorrect, but only when it contradicts more reliable sources and policy obliges us to pick reliable publishers such as the BBC and Eurosport over fansites. That's just the way Wikipedia works: it is an aggregator of reliably published facts. Given the huge contradictions in century breaks and prize money with more established publishers I do not see how CueTracker can in any way be deemed reliable for this information, and looking through player articles that seems to be its primary purpose. We certainly don't need it to source recent match results because there are other options available for that. Betty Logan (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
World Snooker is the governing body, so they're presumptively reliable for the official stats. That should be enough. If a stat isn't found in actually reliable sources, only in non-RS fansites or newssites that are just regurgitating stats they got from someone else, then WP should not include it, per our sourcing policies. There's not really any way around that. The fact that BBC or some other site, presumably drawing on old versions of the official stats, may contradict what World Snooker says today this minute, it of no consequence. We are not the statistics police, and the stats are not so important that we have any encyclopedic need to highlight a conflict between the governing body and some news site, much less fan site. PS: What brought me here, aside from the blacklist warning template, is that the vast majority of the edits I've seen to snooker bios on my watchlist for a long time has been editwarring over stats.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree with the above. There is no RS site which could be used to verify most of this information. The likes of World Snooker, BBC etc. can easily be referenced in providing a century count for O'Sullivan for example, but would the same be possible for a player ranked 90th? Not likely, as it wouldn't be deemed notable enough for that website to include, therefore it has a knock-on effect in having notability here. Betty is correct in saying the fansites have been abused; Nigej is also correct in saying that they are not wholly RS or non-RS; and I was drawn here for the same reasons as SMcCandlish i.e. the edit-warring over these stats. Take Mark Selby in the last 24 hours as an example; his century count has been updated three times without a citation and twice reverted. The warring over these stats will continue whether the sites are blacklisted or not, it will just be under the guise of original research instead of abuse of fansites. Andygray110 (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
As you say, World Snooker are the ultimate authority on this. I recall an incident about 10 years ago when Ronnie o'Sullivan made a maximum in the Irish Masters (2007 I think) but World Snooker ruled it ineligible because the game was played on non-templated pockets. For ages sources reported that he had one maximum more than World Snooker said he had. I share the frustrations of these editors; it would be great to have regularly updated and consistent statistics. For what it's worth I actually think there is a qualitative difference between a fansite reporting a match result (effectively archiving reliably published data) and becoming data producers themselves (which I think is what Cuetracker is doing). I am willing to turn a blind eye in the case of the former, but I think we have to draw the line at fansites compiling their own data because it is essentially OR by proxy. I mean, if that was really what we wanted on Wikipedia then the snooker project could do this itself and probably make a better job of it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment As a shining example of the problems with Cue Tracker, Ronnie O'Sullivan passed the 900-century mark at the Champions of Champions tournament. Subsequently he made one more century at that tournament and then another four so far at the Shangahi Masters for a total of 905 century breaks. Meanwhile, according to http://cuetracker.net/statistics/centuries/most-made/all-time he is on 899. You can argue that Cue Tracker is in the right ballpark, but is approximate data really good enough for an encyclopedia? I think if we add statistics to these articles we have to be able to vouch for their accuracy, and Wikipedia should be held to a higher standard than a fansite or personal blog. Betty Logan (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that cuetracker is out of sync with world snooker and I suppose world snooker has to be regarded as the authority in this case. Where they get their numbers from is a mystery and whether it's any more accurate than anyone else is open to debate. Who knows? My main problem is that your approach to the problem (ie blacklisting sites) seems to me to be completely over-the-top and out of all proportion to the problem. It's just a constant annoyance to users and editors alike to see the stupid hat-notes. I regard it as an ill-judged course of action and it should be reversed, especially since it seems to have been sneaked through without any serious debate. Nigej (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
If you are going to admonish me, will you at least not do so in a disingenuous manner. There was a RFC on this project page 18 months ago—that you participated in—discussing the suitability of these websites as sources. It didn't get a lot of attention but regardless every member of the snooker project had the opportunity to participate in it and have their say. You had your debate and the outcome was that these fansites do not constitute a reliable source. It was conducted openly and it produced a consensus that they should not be used as sources. Fair enough, you disagree with the outcome, but WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, and 18 months is long enough for the situation to be resolved organically. As for the hatnotes, maybe readers actually consider it a service to be warned that there is a strong likelihood the statistics they are faced with are not credible, or at least not consistent with those of World Snooker. If you think the decision should be reversed then there is nothing to prevent you initiating a RFC to formulate a new consensus regarding these links. Betty Logan (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the old RFC, it seems that it was simply closed, albeit with 2 "unacceptables" in the survey section. Certainly, no course of action was mentioned. The course of action was chosen by yourself and I still regard it as ill-judged. Nigej (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
The closing statement explicitly states "The self-published sources about living people are not acceptable. This is both local consensus in the survey section and site-wide policy." The only person at that discussion in favor of retaining these sites is you, and even the closer didn't find your argument convincing. Personally I consider it ill-judged and self-defeating having statistics in an encyclopedia that we can't vouch for as accurate. Betty Logan (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Apologies. I missed the stuff at the top of the RFC. Anyway, we can't vouch for any of the career stats as accurate, so I'm not sure of the point there. Nigej (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
This is ultimately a WP:TRUTH matter. No one can really know exactly how many centuries a particular player has made; what we can report is what an RS says is the official count. The actual sport governing body is the most reliable source for this. And it really is just a stat for comparison with other players; they're all on the same official-source footing here. The stats become meaningless if we use official ones for one player and fansite ones for another, and self-reported ones for someone else. We don't really care if player X claims to do two century breaks per day while practicising. I'm not concerned about the fansites being blacklisted, as long as we make the template about it not visible to readers (it has a parameter for this, and I've been using it when I encounter these huge banner templates in the articles). It should be, and will be, visible to editors in source mode. At the reader level, just tag each such cite with {{User-generated inline}}; a little inline tag is sufficient for readers. Or just remove the cite and whatever is being sourced to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
New complaint about CueTracker accuracy: [1].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Not sure about "complaint" but it's clear cuetracker isn't 100% accurate. I have sent Ron Florax a note about his error. Disappointingly he hadn't responded to me or corrected the error noted at Talk:Ronnie O'Sullivan#Error in cuetracker, which is discouraging. Nigej (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment & question The biggest issue and discussion above about Cuetracker seems to be with century break accuracy. Do inaccurate century counts alone justify a complete blacklisting of the site? I agree if the site was littered with inaccuracies in many different areas (such as competitons, match results, venues etc. then this site shouldn't be used. But there is much more to documenting snooker than merely century counts, and it seems excessive for the site to be blacklisted when there doesn't seem to be an issue with it's qualitative data, merely one part of its quantitative data. Also just a general question...if a site is blacklisted, can it ever be removed from the blacklist? Andygray110 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
    I don't think the problem with Cuetracker is limited to just century counts but to career stats in general. That would apply to prize money and head-to-heads too. The problem isn't just inaccuracy but incompleteness and classification i.e. Cuetracker seems to tot up the data in its database and this is why we are ending up with erroneous century counts, prize money totals etc. Beyond that does it really provide data that cannot be sourced from anywhere else? Betty Logan (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
    Probably not in fairness. It does make sourcing a lot of older results easier by using it, but as you say if certain sections are incomplete and there are errors in certain sections, then I suppose we can't rule out the fact that there may be errors elsewhere (especially with old tournaments when there aren't other sources to corroborate). It is a shame as it IS useful as a research tool and is probably about 90-95% accurate as a whole, but unfortunately we can't cherry-pick from sites if they are proven to be very unreliable in the areas you've mentioned, which pushes it into non-RS territory. Andygray110 (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
    Is there a better source for all of this information though? I understand things like prize money is often shown through the World Snooker website itself, but is CueTracker more accurate at reflecting certain bits of information than any other site? having a local ban on a page, that only has inconsistencies rather than factually incorrect information seems a bit over the top to me. Surely the Wikipedia standard was at one point at least to have CueTracker as the main source? I know in other WikiProjects, that there are sites that have unreliable information, but have some information that is useful on the page. The best example I can give, is Cagematch for professional wrestling, which is generally an unreliable source, due to lots of inaccuracies for things like weight, height and moves, but is fine to use for match listings, and championship lineage... And as such doesn't have a blanket ban, but does get frowned apon for being used as a source for everything other than matches won. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
    The Wikipedia standard has never been to automatically allow Cuetracker as a source. It is a fansite, which per WP:SPS should only be used judiciously i.e. when we *know* the data is correct, or at least when we have no reason to suspect it is inaccurate. For example, I don't really have a problem with the Snooker.org fansite because it mainly just copies over results form World Snooker's live data service (thus acting as an archive) and is accurate in that capacity, but there are so many inconsistencies between Cuetracker and World Snooker/BBC that when I see data sourced to Cuetracker I don't know if it is accurate or not, which kind of defeats the goal of Wikipedia. We are not just talking about obscure data, but even basic stuff like world records. If Cuetracker were being used responsibly and the abuse was in a minority of cases then I agree that blacklisting wouldn't be the best solution, but it seems to be overwhelmingly used to source career stats that are inconsistent with what the likes of World Snooker and the BBC publish. In this case it seems to me the disadvantages of the abuse outweigh the advantages of convenience i.e. we end up with more content that we can't trust than content we can trust. If we stripped out Cuetracker as a source from all career stats (which is where the problem mostly occurs) I bet there wouldn't be that many Cuetracker references left. And then if we replaced those left with other sources where we could I bet Cuetracker would be hardly used at all. The problem for me right now is that everytime I go on a snooker article I see where Cuetracker shouldn't be used but I'm not really coming across cases where it is essential to use. Betty Logan (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
    Hi, I'm Ron, the guy who runs CueTracker. There are a lot of random incorrect assumptions being made by you about the site, its contents and sources in these discussions, a lot of which are misled and/or baseless. I have never been contacted by anybody writing for Wikipedia to discuss this. I think CueTracker is a valuable, reliable source, and that no other source comes close to matching it, especially considering the lack of official sources. If you wish to discuss this further you can contact me via the website or Twitter. 84.217.42.171 (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    What incorrect assumptions am I making about the site? What is your explanation for having Hendry on three centuries less than just about every other source, including World Snooker and the BBC? I agree that Cuetracker is a useful site but it fails WP:Reliable source criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

World champs category

I've opened a CfR, here, to use Category:Snooker world champions instead of Category:World snooker champions, for increased clarity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox_snooker_player now supports |honorary_suffix=

I've added |honorary_suffix= to Template:Infobox snooker player, so we can stop polluting the |name= data. Already fixed Steve Davis to use this; not sure who else needs it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  06:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

http://www.worldsnooker.com/osullivan-awarded-obe/ has a list, which may or may not be complete. Nigej (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Not complete, since it doesn't include Joe and Fred Davis Nigej (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Cliff Thorburn Nigej (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Walter Lindrum, Clark McConachy Nigej (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Eddie Charlton Nigej (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Should we be using "honorific_suffix = {{post-nominals|country=GBR|OBE}}" or "honorific_suffix=[[Order of the British Empire|OBE]]" ? Compare Joe Davis, Fred Davis (snooker player)? Nigej (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If you use the template in an infobox, it also needs |size=100 to prevent it being tiny. Either way will work; the template is just so you don't have to remember the name(s) of the article(s) to link, and it also does <abbr> tooltip markup, so it's a tiny bit more functional. It only works for the post-noms coded into the template. The "big deal" British ones are included, but some of Commonwealth national ones are not (e.g. whatever the national civilian medal in Trinidad is, and so on). More can be added, but it takes work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Complete? list

I think that's it (unless someone has it for something outside Snooker.) I've been working on a load of pool templates (that didn't exist before), and the {{Infobox pool player}} has the same fields. Outside of Efren Reyes, I can't think of anyone else who has a honour like this, but worth keeping in mind if you see it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

High break field in infoboxes

An editor has started adding "lists" of tournaments to the high break field in infoboxes. This is not so bad when just a single tournament is added but it is leading to some extreme situations. Case in point is Stephen Hendry. Is this a practice we want to deter or do you think we should let it slide? Betty Logan (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Since most top players have at least one maximum, I'm struggling to see a need for it. Nigej (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
If it's kept, it should be done with {{unbulleted list}}. I've been cleaning up after this well-meaning but messy anon [2], who's been inserting broken HTML all over the place, along with unhelpful line breaks and other problems, so I'll fix the using-<br>-to-make-pseudolists problem as I go, when it's a result of that person's changes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  00:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I've fixed about 50 of the article that person touched (just see my snooker-related edits over last day or so), and have run out of patience for it. I think he/she changed several hundred of them, mostly removing links, inserting pointless line breaks, adding bad HTML without closing tags, and using br markup instead of unbulleted lists, and removing {{cn}} tags that someone presumably put there for a reason. I've also been setting the hidden display parameter on the blacklist warning template to =true when I encounter it, so we stop spamming readers with a huge warning block we're not even sure we want (see blacklist thread above).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I think we should just revert the editor. We have a list of all the maximums at Maximum Break if anybody cares enough to look them up. Betty Logan (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Just regarding points above, the edits on line breaks are continuing even on articles previously reverted, such as at Dave Harold [3]. Unfortunately a lot of the infoboxes are now very ugly looking. As mentioned above, IP insists on continuing the same edits, posting on the talk page is pointless as the editor doesn't reply, and I have reason to believe it may be an IP hopper who continuously makes the same changes (only on snooker-related articles), receives several warnings, then moves to a different IP to continue to make the same mass changes. Allegedly, as I can't prove any of that, although the editing history is strangely similar across several accounts. Some of the edits are unhelpful as well, such as Andy Hicks [4]. Why are inline citations being removed? Andygray110 (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid WP:SNOOKER has become the wild west of Wikipedia, and I sometimes think that we spend our time fining people for dropping litter while the town goes up in smoke. Nigej (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Nicknames again

We really need to do something about this. Articles like Stephen Hendry are chock full of alleged "nicknames" most of which are one-off turns of phrase by sports journalists. We have no evidence these are actual nicknames used by the subject or regularly used in their field by others, except in a few cases, most of which already have citations. Without this proof, assertion of some laudatory (or mocking) phrase as a nickname on Wikipedia fails WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV all at the same time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Personally I'd be happy to get rid of it from the infobox. Otherwise it needs a lot of patrolling. We also have List of snooker player nicknames which also has plenty of dodgy entries. Nigej (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
We probably don't need both. We can probably dump the parameter or the list. My preference would be to get rid of the parameter because the list is at least sourced. The list can then be weeded. A nickname in snooker is by definition one that an MC has used to introduce the player. Betty Logan (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Missing article: American snooker; and article or section: Channel Islands Snooker Championship

I have rather dusty drafts (I think I worked on one, and salvaged another from AfD); anyone should feel free to "adopt" these, or just write something all-new. I've been sitting on them for years and am unlikely to get around to it.

BBC article

Just read this article on the very respectable BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/snooker/42070352 . Got to the end and found "All stats courtesy of CueTracker.net", one of our blacklisted sites. You've got to laugh, haven't you. Nigej (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The BBC article states that O'Sullivan has made "a record 906 centuries in his career", but yet http://cuetracker.net/statistics/centuries/most-made/all-time puts him on 902 centuries, so where has the BBC got the figure from? There are two possibilities: either the BBC has not actually got all its statistics from CueTracker, or CueTracker has supplied the stats but not updated their website. The BBC figures for Hendry and Higgins also differ from CueTracker's, so which set of figures would you actually advocate in this instance? Betty Logan (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I've never suggested using any career totals from cuetracker, I've never added any and indeed I've removed a number from Wikipedia. The cuetracker totals are simply the current total for the data in cuetracker at the time. cuetracker realises this obvious fact too and has added on some missing centuries. To me this doesn't mean we should blacklist the site, it simply means we shouldn't be using career totals (or even season totals). Ronnie's total has gone from 900 to 902 in the last few days, without Ronnie playing, and there's still an error in cuetracker that I noted on Ronnie's talk page which has not been corrected. Nigej (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Correction: Ronnie got 2 in the first round of the UK hence the 900 to 902. Nigej (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Missing article: World Snooker Federation

The new body WSF was started by WPBSA to work around IBSF's alleged over-control of voting seats at WCBS. WCF is itself listed in the WCBS org chart already, above both IBSF and WPBSA. Info found so far is here, but it's just WPBSA's side of the story. may also need to update WPBSA article with some of this stuff (including the "declaration of war" press release they issued about IBSF in July).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  11:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Alan McManus

Hi, I saw that Alan McManus was on your list of topics to be updates, so I gave it a go, and updated the article by re-organising the career section into years, similar to other articles that I've seen.

As I am unfamiliar with WP:Snooker, I was wondering if there was any information for sources for earlier seasons for his career, as most of the information on the article is from after he had already dropped out of the top 16; and not the years where he was doing well (and the masters win). Anyone have good places for expanding this section? Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. Unfortunately snooker is not well served by reliable online sources, so it's quite difficult. For specific events, newspapers are quite useful (if you have access to any). I'm happy to expand the 1994 Masters (snooker) page which is perhaps the win he's best remembered for. Nigej (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:World champions in snooker

Hi. I noticed that this Cat, whose name doesn't read well for BrEng at least, has been applied today by User:Fayenatic london to a number of biographies of players who have not won the World Snooker Championship.

Any chance we can get the Cat renamed?

Any idea why this Cat is going on biogs like Ricky Walden? If it's because he's won the rather immaterial Six-red World Championship, we should reconsider confusing our readers. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:World champions in snooker says "This category holds winners of other world championships in snooker, such as Six-red World Championship and World Seniors Championship." so I guess this is the reason. See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_13#Category:World_snooker_champions which says "The result of the discussion was: split somehow, so rename to Category:Winners of the professional snooker world championship as a sub-category of Category:World champions in snooker, which is the pattern within Category:World champions in cue sports and some others.". All a little odd I agree, since if you said Ricky Walden was a world snooker champion, most people would think you were out of your mind. Nigej (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Thinking about it, perhaps just having sub-categories like Category:Winners of the Six-red World Championship, etc would clarify the situation. Nigej (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking along those lines too. I proposed a sub-category structure at that discussion which I still think is the best way of doing it. The rename was essentially about correcting a poorly formed category name, and we can still make sub-catgeories for the professional championship, the amateur, the ladies, the 6-reds etc per my suggestion at the discussion. We just need to come to an agreement about which categories we want and what they will be called. Betty Logan (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that Winners of the Six-red World Championship is better. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be just six-red and seniors we need to consider to start with (eg Allison Fisher hasn't been done yet). Betty Logan suggested Winners of the Six-red snooker world championship and Winners of the seniors snooker world championship. I might prefer Category:Winners of the Six-red World Championship and Category:Winners of the World Seniors Championship but it's no big deal to me. As noted above we just need to agree. There's a WP:CATNAME for guidelines. Nigej (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

By all means go ahead and create more sub-categories for each championship. If there is a consensus here for a better name for the parent than Category:World champions in snooker, I'd happily revise my close of the CfD. – Fayenatic London 14:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't have particularly strong opinions on this but we might want to have the word "snooker" in there somewhere, especially for the Seniors event. Betty Logan (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Snooker season articles – tiny table fonts

The tiny font use in the tables in the yearly snooker season articles is too small, and against MOS:ACCESS; it's even smaller than infobox text, which is about as small as we want to get. There's no reason to reduce the font size at all in those tables; they're not unusually wide.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  02:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Earlier this year there was an IP who was steaming through articles dropping the font size to values in the range of 70–80%. I reverted the editor on quite a few articles but it was an IP editor so it is likely I missed a load. Betty Logan (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree, I reverted quite a few also but as per Betty's comments above, there were so many reductions, and then similar reductions weeks later, that I probably missed some also. Andygray110 (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Career finals: Senior event section

Hi everyone. Given the new focus World Snooker has on creating an establish seniors tour, my idea is that it would be a good idea to create a separate section within players' career final sections to reflect this. Currently seniors final appearances (wins or finals) are included in the non-ranking section. Although they are non-ranking per se, they don't involve the majority of professionals so my view is it would be best to create a separate finals section, like we currently do with variant events/pro-am events. For example, the idea would be to split senior tournament finals from the non-ranking section and display Jimmy White's potential new seniors section as follows:

Senior event finals: 2 (2 titles)

Outcome No. Year Championship Opponent in the final Score
Winner 1. 2010 World Seniors Championship England Steve Davis 4–1
Winner 2. 2017 UK Seniors Championship Republic of Ireland Ken Doherty 4–2

Other players who would be changed would be any finalists of the World Seniors Championship, World Seniors Masters and any of the new seniors events such as UK Seniors Championship and Irish Seniors Championship. Any thoughts? Andygray110 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I think that's a very good idea. I'm not sure if the articles NEED this, but it seems very sensible to me. Would you change the infobox to reflect this as well though? Lee Vilenski(talk) 17:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm not too sure about the infobox change. The reason I think that is that for some players i.e. Steve Davis they are of huge width already. He could potentially play in these events for the next twenty years which would extend one small section of the infobox to massive proportions while the rest of the tournaments stay blank. For example, see John Parrott's section which already includes World Seniors and could keep extending. Personally though I don't mind either way I just think it could begin to look a bit unwieldy. If they were to be included either all seniors tournaments should be included or none at all. Andygray110 (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
      • I was actually thinking more the infobox at the start of the page, although the list of tournaments is probably more important. Lee Vilenski(talk) 18:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Sorry I misread you there! The infobox could also be an option, I've no strong opinion either way so would be happy to go with a consensus. Andygray110 (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
          I have no objection to creating a dedicated section. As for the infobox while I am not completely opposed to creating a separate field my preference would be to just retain the status quo and count them as "non-ranking" titles. Secondary coverage generally breaks it down into ranking titles and all the rest, and I don't think we need any more distinction than that in the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
          I agree with you there Betty, they are literally "non-ranking titles", I think the infobox should reflect that also. Andygray110 (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I also said that but you did not agree with me ? 92.251.128.48 (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure if you're addressing me or not but I'll assume you are. I was merely agreeing with Betty about the infobox. I hadn't actually seen your statement below but now that I'm reading it I'm not sure whether you're talking about the infobox or a new section under Career Finals. As I'm not sure what you meant (and still don't) I doubt I would have been able to reply in any case. Andygray110 (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

No need to create another section leave them as Non-ranking events 92.251.145.64 (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

On reflection, perhaps best to leave as is. There are a lot of career final sections already and I don't want to flood the contents section with too many. If the seniors tour expands in future this could perhaps be re-visited, perhaps with colour-coding within the non-ranking section. Andygray110 (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Is cuetracker blacklisted for adding tournament wins ?

In Snooker cuetracker.net has a few events Chris Turner does not. If cuetracker.net is the only source for the event what happens ?. Why is it blacklisted and what other sources are blacklisted from being sources please ? 31.200.137.180 (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

If Cuetracker is the only source for an event (that is it is ommitted from the Chris Turner Snooker Archive, Snooker.org and the Cuesport Book of Professional Snooker) and no record of the event can be found in Google news archives then I would question our reliance on Cuetracker alone for that event. It may be correct, but if we cannot corroborate the information we cannot be sure. Please read WP:SPS for further guidance on the use of self-published sources. They should only be used with care and if the person behind them has a credible background in either snooker or sport journalism. If you are seeking information about a specific event perhaps you could list it here so we have something specific to go on. So far I have not come across any cases where Cuetracker is not replaceable. Betty Logan (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

But betty that is your opinion. Steve Davis won the European Masters League in 1991. It is only found on cuetracker.net. Chris Turner did have lots of events missing from his site he did not cover everything. that does not mean it should be ommitted from Wikipedia. Fair enough cuetracker has problems with century breaks, but not with tournament finals 31.200.137.180 (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The European Masters League is listed in the Cuesport Book of Professional Snooker. I will type in the results here tomorrow and supply you with a page reference that you can use. Betty Logan (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, I have just cross-referenced all the results at http://cuetracker.net/tournaments/european-masters-league/1991/770 with those listed in the Cuesport Book of Professional Snooker. Cuetracker is completely correct for these results so I suggest you just copy them over and use the book as a reference. Here is the full citation for the results: <ref>{{cite book |first=Eric |last=Hayton |title=The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker |year=2004 |publisher=Rose Villa Publications |isbn=095485490X |page=160}}</ref> Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


Is there any need to reference the book at all if cuetracker.net is right in fairness ?. 178.167.172.1 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

We can't add Cuetracker as a source because it is blacklisted. If we un-blacklist Cuetracker then it will continue being abused as a source for erroneous stats, so it's Hobson's choice. To be fair to Cuetracker I have never personally come across incorrect results (although I amware Nigej has) and don't actually object to its use in this regard, but there is no way to allow its use for results and stop it being used for century counts and prize money, which is basically where most of the errors occur. Betty Logan (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


I know what you mean about century breaks, money I haven't looked into yet. So don't know as I said finals and tournaments should be accurate ?. Is it just him and prosnookerblog blacklisted ?. 178.167.172.1 (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Who or what other sources are blacklisted?. Regards 178.167.172.1 (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Cuetracker, Prosnooker Blog and Snooker.info are blacklisted. I don't generally have a problem with Cuetracker as a source for tournament results but rather its proliferation as a stat "generator" i.e. century breaks, prize money etc. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
And that's actually fine, per WP:NOTNEWS. It's not WP's job to regurgitate primary sources like these to provide up-to-the-moment tournament. Until results have been reported in non-self-published and non-WP:UGC sources that are reputably published, WP has not business including the alleged info.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for your project?

Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.

Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

History of snooker

Hi all, had someone edit the Snooker article, claiming the first ever match was in Jaipur, and referenced the Hsistory of Snooker article. I've reverted it as unreferenced, but the History of Snooker article is in a right state. No references at all. I'm not really too clued in about the history of snooker, or the references, but I wonder if anyone could take a look? Lee Vilenski(talk) 18:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Snooker season 2017/2018 map image

Hi all, I have added an image (map of tour countries) to the above article. I have placed it in the infobox but I'm aware that this may not be the place for it. Please feel free to move outside the box if this is against consensus. Andygray110 (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Lynette Horsburgh AfD

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynette Horsburgh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Result tables in tournament articles

In the last year or two sponsors have been added into tournament result tables, and rowspans have also been added in radically altering the structure of the tables from their well established format. As an example, the table at UK Championship went from this to [5]. I have reservations about the new layout as I explain at Talk:UK_Championship#Sponsors_in_the_table. If the snooker project thinks this is a positive direction for the tournament articles then fair enough, but these are radical changes which as far as I can tell have never been discussed so I would like to establish the project position on this. Betty Logan (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree it appears to be excessive. I don't think it's necessary to include the sponsor names in this field and I agree on the visual aspect, it looks unwieldy. I think the individual article page alone is a suitable place to mention the sponsor. Having it too many places such as you've highlighted above borders on infringing aspects of WP:PROMOTION. Andygray110 (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
While I agree the tables look a bit excessive, if you compare the pages to World Matchplay (darts) and PDC World Darts Championship they also include sponsors and the venues. I think at the very least we should have the venues in the tables. Snooker also has tournaments that come and go, similar to darts, so would be helpful to someone that only wants to look at the main tournament page and not go through all the individual tournament pages. - Nick C (t·c) 20:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why the darts articles should be held as a standard for the snooker articles when the snooker articles already have their own long-standing standard. The original layout included the venues anyway, so this is really just about sponsors and rowspans. As Andygray points out adding the sponsors to the tables could be seen as infringing WP:PROMOTION. The sponsor is important in the context of the tournament, but arguably not in the context of the history of the tournament. These are primarily results tables so all that is really required are the names of the finalists, the scores and the dates/seasons. I don't really object to the venues because even though they aren't strictly warranted these articles have traditionally included them. Even if there were a consensus to include the sponsors I don't see why the single-row format could not be retained as it was before to keep the layout clean. Betty Logan (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think I have found an acceptable compromise. I have removed the sponsors and swapped around the venue and season columns so the rowspans come at the end of the rows and don't create discontinuities. You can view a before and after, and it looks much cleaner even if I do say so myself. Betty Logan (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Cliff Thorburn (titles)

Hi all. Just drawing to general interest a topic here at Cliff Thorburn's talk page. Some of the titles in the article here (those showing no opponent) can only be sourced to Cliff Thorburn's official website, in particular this link: [6]. I can't corroborate these with any other secondary sources, including the ones we normally use such as Chris Turner's Archive, Cuesport Book of Professional Snooker etc. Another user insists these should be included and while I'm not totally opposed, I just wonder if this particular site falls under WP:PRIMARY and if so should these titles be included. Any opinions? Andygray110 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Can somebody create a page for Harvey Chandler please ?.

I have asked a few moderators on here but nobody has created it yet. His DOB is April 19th 1995, 22yo. Once the page is created i can add personal info. Will someone let me know when it is added please ?. Regards 92.251.136.78 (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Is this player notable enough to require a page of his own? Doing a web search on him all I found was him appearing at the Paul Hunter Classic and winning the EBSA European Championship, but that probably wouldn't be enough to meet the requirements of WP:Notability (sports), especially if he hasn't yet turned professional. For example, see the reasons given here for the deletion of Daniel Ward: [7]. My guess is if the page was created it would be a straightforward nomination for deletion. Andygray110 (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Well he just won the European Championship Mens amateur event to earn a two year pro card for next season. So yeah id say he has done enough to requie a page of his own. What is the difference in creating now or in four months time ? . Regards 92.251.136.78 (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Really i don't think it is a big deal ! 92.251.177.172 (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL doesn't agree with you. Come back in four months. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with the above. Playing on the pro tour is notable, winning a place on it is not. It looks like a formality that an article will be created in due course but it is not necessary to jump the gun. Betty Logan (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Expanding. The reason why we have CRYSTAL is because 1) there's nothing to say he won't get religion, fall in love with someone who lives on a remote island, break his cue arm in 8 places, be run over by a bus or be offered a £150K a year job, all of which could prevent him from ever taking up his place on the tour 2) until such time as he actually is included in the draw of a major tournament or passes WP:GNG, he's not actually notable yet, so we shouldn't include him even if we know for sure he's going be safe, well and committed to snooker for the next four months. Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I was challenging your viewpoint! I agree with it—the new season will kick off in 4–5 months and once this player starts appearing in draws as a red link the creation of the article becomes a no-brainer. Betty Logan (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
No! Of course not. I was just trying to be [more] helpful to the IP editor. Our ways of doing things aren't easy for a newcomer to understand. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm a huge fan of snooker but let's wait until we don't have to face a time-wasting AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Dweller who said i am a newcomer or were you just being condescending ?. You know nothing about me or how long i have been on here. I hope you find religion on a remote island 92.251.177.172 (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Your edit history suggests that you hadn't been here, would be my suggestion. I doubt anyone was trying to be condecending see WP:BITE. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

No i don't see i have edited on here for years. The comments were condescending imo ok 92.251.177.172 (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to unregistered users it is difficult to know how experienced that person is. They could have been on Wikipedia for 10 years or 10 days, there is no way of knowing. I am sure Dweller didn't mean anything by it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
There are hardly any edits from your IP address, but more than that, the arguments made you appear to be a newcomer. I'm sorry if I took the wrong impression from those two pieces of evidence, I was trying to be helpful, rather than conduct a forensic investigation. If you'd prefer that people interact with you on the basis of your proper editing history, feel free to register an account. It takes about two minutes and is free of charge. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW a page was created for Simon Lichtenberg so what is the problem here ?. 92.251.177.172 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

That article shouldn't been created either! If it ends up at AfD it will more than likely go. Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Does it really matter ? At the end of the day who cares 92.251.177.172 (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Betty as a matter of interest why couldn't you open a seniors masters page ?. You are deleting edits snd involved in everything else on here ?. Even speaking out for other people ?. Just curious 92.251.222.161 (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Can someone create a page for "The Seniors Masters" please

The draw has been made and i will add it. Regards 92.251.177.172 (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone do this then and i will add the draw ?. 31.200.170.104 (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Historically, There has not been a Masters Seniors article. All articles need to pass WP:GNG before they are made, or a version of this. If the article has good sourcing, then it's fine to create. What sources have you got? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a new event being held in April it is on the 2017/2018 Snooker Season calendar. Part of the World Seniors Tour. I just want someone to create the page and ill do the rest. 178.167.148.207 (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you create an article at Articles for creation. It's specifically designed for new articles like this. I'm a reviewer, so I'll put it through if it's notable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I dont want to submit anything i just want a tournament page to be created that is all 92.251.238.73 (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

that isn't how it works. See the topic above. Anyone can add a draw to a page. But, the subject needs to meet WP:GNG. Why not submit the topic to AfC?, or sign up, and gain autoconfirmed status so you can create pages yourself? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

AfD on Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018

An AfD has begun on this topic here. It has largely followed on from a discussion at Talk:2018 World Snooker Championship and an edit war which has caused the 2018 article to be locked down for 24 hours. Andygray110 (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Player Statistics in World Championship articles

Hi All, it's that time of year, when the World Championships are with us, but I wanted to confirm that what I was doing was correct, and had the backing of the WikiProject. Recently, the latest two world championship articles have featured "Player Statistics" in the articles, noting the following items: Whitewashes, final frame deciders, oldest and youngest competitors, "Gap between appearance" and a "representation by country" table. These things all seem to be things that are already stated in the article (With the age of competitors being the only thing that is missed out... But if it were important, it could be mentioned in prose, or fitted into the infobox...)

I've removed a lot of this information from the articles (As well as remove a lot of bullet point lists, and replaced with prose), is this ok? I wouldn't want to remove information that is warranted, but it all seems superfluous and suitable for a wikia. The World Championships should be our best articles, but they seem to be the target of trivia. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The section seems to have started for the 2015 World Snooker Championship and grown since. We don't to have such a section for any other tournaments (I think). Some iof the information is duplicated anyway (list of debutants), some is pure trivia and some can be usefully added higher up in prose form. Should be a relatively simple task to remove it. BTW I've no idea what a wikia is. Nigej (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikia being a regular wiki, outside of Wikipedia. My mistake. I'll go through and remove if everyone agrees. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Update - I've done some work on the articles working back to 2015. Mostly with prose, (I can't stand bullet lists), and removed this information. if there is enough warranting for particular information to be included, I can re-add. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Can someone remove the Rhys from Jamie Clarke's name please.

Jamie has now gone professional he does not use the name Rhys. Can someone remove it please ?. World Snooker names him as Jamie Clarke as does the EBSA as he won their playoff to qualify for the main tour.His twitter name is Jamie Clarke and finally Hermund at Snooker.org contacted him and he wants to be known as Jamie Clarke.snooker.org is removing the name Rhys. Can we do the same please ?. Regards 31.200.183.141 (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Jamie Clarke (snooker player) is already available as a redirect to Jamie Rhys Clarke. If you want to make Jamie Clarke (snooker player) the main page for him this would required a WP:Requested Move. Nigej (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

i just want the rhys removed from the page is that ok ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.183.141 (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The above is how that would be done. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

why can't someone just remove it like Sunny Akani's page. is it that big a deal ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.183.141 (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Sunny Akani for the requested move of him from Akani Songsermsawad. Nigej (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

i have never done this before i dont even know how to request a move ?/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.183.141 (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, lots of reasons. The article Jamie Clarke already exists, as a disambiguation page, as there are lots of Jamie Clarkes on Wikipedia. So, the only suitable place is Jamie Clarke (snooker player). However, as stated above, this already exists as well as a redirect, so to move the article, you need to put in a requested move request. You can do this just as much as me, or anyone else.
Personally, when I searched for both names, the current article title seemed to be more of the WP:COMMONNAME. Please click on the link provided for WP:Requested Moves to find out how this is done Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
It would be simpler to leave the article where it is per WP:NATURALDIS. We can't move the article to Jamie Clarke and I don't see what there is to gain in moving it to Jamie Clarke (snooker player) if we already have a perfectly serviceable title. Betty Logan (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed the article uses "Jamie Clarke" mostly, it's just the title that's got the Rhys in it. We are sometimes using [[Jamie Rhys Clarke|Jamie Clarke]] and sometimes [[Jamie Clarke (snooker player)|Jamie Clarke]] which is mildly confusing perhaps. Nigej (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


so can we remove the rhys name from the main article then ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.183.141 (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

If you are referring to the article name, then the answer is NO (see above). There are many people in the world called Jamie Clarke so it is not possible to use that for the snooker player. The alternatives are Jamie Clarke (snooker player) or Jamie Rhys Clarke. Nigej (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we use Jamie Clarke snooker player then it makes more sense in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.189.174 (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

We seem to be going around in circles here. Read the above. This would require a WP:Requested Move. Some have already commented above that they prefer the existing article name, so the requested move may not succeed. You can try if you like. Nigej (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

i already said i never used that before so i would not even know how to log it ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.189.174 (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason it should be moved Betty is because Rhys is not and should not be in his name. His name is Jamie Clarke. So the page should be Jamie Clarke (snooker player) 178.167.223.245 (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Start rankings

In Snooker world rankings 2016/2017 and Snooker world ranking points 2016/2017, the start rankings are identical to the final rankings of Snooker world rankings 2015/2016 and the rankings of the relegated players are skipped. For example Stuart Carrington have a start ranking 64, the next player is Alfie Burden ranked 75 and then Martin O'Donnell ranked 77. However, in Snooker world rankings 2017/2018 and Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 only existing plays are counted, no rankings are skipped and the start rankings are consecutive. Which convention is correct? Also, which one should be put on a player's page? In Itaro Santos, the first convention is used. But in Hamza Akbar, the second convention is used (If it follows Snooker world rankings 2016/2017 then the start ranking of 2016/17 should be 102 in stead of 81).--QBear (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  • The rankings should match whatever World Snooker says they are. World Snooker re-ranks after the world championship and a player's rank will determine tour survival. Once some players have been relegated and others promoted the players are re-ranked once more to determine the seedings for the first events of the season, and these are denoted the "start rankings" by World Snooker. Let's take the above players as examples:
Name 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018
Start End Ref Start End Ref Start End Ref
Stuart Carrington 64 [1] 64 46 [2] 46 [3]
Alfie Burden 75 [1] 65 61 [2] 60 [3]
Itaro Santos 124 [1] 93 127 [2] n/a [3]
Hamza Akbar 102 [1] 81 112 [2] NEW [3]

References

  1. ^ a b c d "World Rankings: After 2016 Betfred World Championship". World Snooker. World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association. 3 May 2015. Archived from the original on 3 May 2016.
  2. ^ a b c d "World Rankings: After the 2017 Betfred World Championship" (PDF). World Snooker. World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association. 2 May 2017. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 May 2017.
  3. ^ a b c d "World Rankings: After the 2018 Fuhua Group China Open" (PDF). World Snooker. World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association. 8 April 2018. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 April 2018.
These are the official rankings as published by World Snooker. If you check the references you will see they also include the season "start" rank on each list so a player's progress can be tracked throughout the season. In the case of Stuart Carrington his start rank matches his end rank because he is always in the top 64. In the case of Alfie Burden I am confused by this rank of #77; that would seem to be incorrect because according to the sources he finishes 2015/2016 ranked #75, is re-ranked to #65 at the start of 2016/2017, finishes 2016/2017 ranked #61, and is re-ranked to #60 at the start of this season (the slight change in rank was due to World Snooker dropping the 2015 Riga Open points. According to World Snooker's own published rankings both Itaro Santos and Hamza Akbar achieved top rankings of #93 and #81. I appreciate the method by which they achieved these rankings (the players above them being cut) is pretty ludicrous, but ultimately this is what their rankings were according to World Snooker. Any article on Wikipedia that does not reflect this needs to be corrected. Betty Logan (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your answer. I also found some inconsistency on how World Snooker made the starting rankings. In season 2015/16, the start rankings were just the final rankings of 2014/15 without re-ranking them [8]. They have adopted a new method since season 2016/17.--QBear (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
    If I recall correctly players not on the tour that still held professional membership used to retain their ranking, certainly when the points based system was in use. Obviously if players retained their ranking regardless of being on the tour then they wouldn't have been re-ranked. The older system made more sense IMO because at least you had consistency between seasons. Logic has never been a World Snooker priority though. Betty Logan (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Q School 2018

Can anyone who have the permission, review Q School 2018 – Event 1, Q School 2018 – Event 2 and Q School 2018 – Event 3? Since they are not detected by search engines. Thank you!--QBear (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Counter clearance

I notice in 2018 World Snooker Championship#Final that we have the terms "counter-clearances" and "counter-cleared". This seems to be the first use of the term in Wikipedia and I'm at a loss to know what the term actually means. I'd be grateful if anyone who knows could add the term to Glossary of cue sports terms. Nigej (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be more like a brand new buzzword from commentary teams right now. I doubt I can find a source to agree with this, but it is the process of clearing the table, from zero or next to 0, where the player wins the frame; given that their opponent has already broken down close to the winning line. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Or (from the sounds of it) a clearance where all, or nearly all, the balls were required to win the frame - although you imply it happens immediately after the opponent has made a sizeable break. Nigej (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it would have to be both, as if the player had simply gotten near the winning post, and missed a ball, and the other cleared up, would just be a regular clearance. There's a distinction between a clearance (clearing the table in a break), counter clearance (as above) and total clearance (potting every ball on the table in a break). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The term should probably be avoided for now per WP:JARGON. It is impossible to write about snooker without using technical terms, but we should at least stick to terms that are familiar to the casual fan. If snooker editors are having to debate their meaning then they don't belong in an article at present. Betty Logan (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree 100%. Nigej (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

When do the new rankings start?

http://www.worldsnooker.com/rankings/ still has the post-World Championship list (130 with points) but https://www.wpbsa.com/rankings/latest-provisional-seedings/ has the new list, pre-2018 Riga Masters (97 with points). However, this is called a "seeding" list not a "ranking" one. Does this mean that the first list remains the official "rankings" until after the Riga Masters, and only then do those who dropped off the tour disappear from the rankings? And what list was used for the Riga Masters seedings? All very confusing to me. Nigej (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The players are officially re-ranked at the start of the new season (i.e. before Riga) but World Snooker generally never formally issues a new list at the start of the season. However, each new ranking list includes a "start" column which gives the "re-ranked positions". I appreciate this doesn't make much sense so let me give you an example:
  • Zhang Anda was ranked #78 after the 2017 World Championship: [9] ("current ranking" column).
  • Zhang Anda was ranked #66 after the 2017 Riga Masters (first tournament of the 2017/2018 season: [10]).
  • However, Zhang Anda's "start" rank before the Riga Masters was #67, not #78, according to the post-Riga ranking update ("start ranking" column).
So as you can see, the players have been re-ranked at the start of the season but we had to wait until the post-Riga rankings came out to find out what the "start" rank was. I hope this makes sense. It is pretty complicated but that is World Snooker for you. Betty Logan (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. So for the "Current ranking" on the players page (eg Zhang Anda) we leave it is as it is "(67 (as of 8 May 2018))" and then change it to the post-Riga Masters ranking after that event has finished. Nigej (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I would say that the rankings on the player profiles should at all times match up to the official rankings at http://www.worldsnooker.com/rankings/, so on that basis Zhang Anda would be ranked #67. The list at https://www.wpbsa.com/rankings/latest-provisional-seedings/ is essentially projecting the first update after Riga so it has no official standing at the moment. That said, it is likely that World Snooker have re-seeded for Riga (after removing the relegated players) but the problem is we won't know what the start seedings are until World Snooker issues its first ranking list (after Riga). So in answer to the second part of your question the earliest we will be able to update the rankings is most likely after Riga. Betty Logan (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Snooker_world_ranking_points_2018/2019

How come a load of players have risen 20-30 places (like Jimmy White) yet none have dropped 20-30 places? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Higher players leaving the tour, most likely. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Some of the players outside the top 64 were relegated from the tour meaning that those that stayed on move up to higher rankings. Also, as the editor working on the list it is important to point out that the chart is not finalised and is a work in progress. The table currently uses last seasons finishing positions as start ranks because World Snooker has not issued a new ranking list as yet. The players will re-ranked at the start of the season, and once we get the new ranking list for this season the start ranks will be corrected for the surviving tour players. This is the reason I have left the "under construction" notice at the top of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. Odd that players ranked in the 70s and 80s were relegated when those in the 90s/100s weren't. Or am I misunderstanding? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
More complex than that. Oliver Lines who was 65th after last season with 83,312 points qualified for the tour again but lost all his points, and starts from zero. Many of those further down the list were new to the tour the previous season and had a two-year exemption, so retain their place on the tour and their points. Experts out there: correct me if I'm wrong. Nigej (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The snooker authorities do like their rules to be Byzantine. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Nige is correct. The main cause of all this is that World Snooker operates a 2-year ranking system, and those who have been on the tour for only 1-year are immune from relegation. The upshot is that someone ranked #65 on the tour could lose their place and a player ranked #120 could keep theirs. Obviously those on the tour for two years usually have more points than those on the tour for just a year. It gets even more complicated, because if you lose your place you can enter Q School (snooker) and immediately win your place back, except you start on nil points as if you are a new player. Very different to the first ranking system, which was devised by John Spencer on the back of a fag packet. Betty Logan (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:SNOOKERMOS

A few things that I have spotted recently, regarding our WP:MOS for this project. On tournament articles, we have a list of centuries, both in the qualifying and televised stages (Should this say Televised, if the game's aren't all televised? Some qualifying events are now broadcast as well).

Should this be in a specific order? For instance, the current 2018 World Open (snooker) article lists the qualifying centuries first, whilst 2018 World Snooker Championship lists the Main stage centuries first. In my eyes, the main stage centuries should come first, as they are more pertinent to the article.

I also had to bring up our consensus regarding live scores. I was under the impression that wikipedia was against Live scoring, but our articles are very often updated frame-by-frame. I thought this might have been a local consensus for the WikiProject, but it actually says in the MOS that it isn't. Any ideas if we should remove live updates? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Generally World Snooker stipulates which stage counts as a "televised" stage for the purposes of the prize money. They used to only award the highest break prize at the televised stage; for example, if a qualifying match was held over to the venue stage and televised the high break prize would not count for that match, but it would count for a non-televised last 16 match. Sometimes a non-televised tournament could even have a televised "stage" if World Snooker were hoping to obtain a broadcaster but then couldn't find one. This used to happen lot in the pre-Hearn era. Even if they televise the qualifiers World Snooker might not count them as "televised" for the purposes of the prize. As for live updates, then yes, technically you should remove mid-match scores because Wikipedia is not a live-scoring service but good luck with that one; I have attempted it in the past and burned through three reverts in a matter of minutes so I think it's a lost cause. You reallly don't want to get blocked for violating 3RR over snooker scores. Betty Logan (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Any prefrence on if the centuries for the main/qualifying should come first in the article? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Personally I would have them mirror the draw structure (main draw then qualifiers) like at the world championship article. Betty Logan (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. If the qualifying matches are listed after the main draw, then it seems logical to do the same for centuries. As to live scoring. Most of us have given up on this. I suppose it's harmless enough. We used to have a rule that only the final score was added, then end of session scores (in the world championship for instance) but its broken down completely now. People even add the 0-0 score. The other thing I hate is adding the England flag (or whatever) when both competitors are English. Why not add "Mark" when Mark Selby is playing Mark Williams? Nigej (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I have reordered the qualy/main centuries sections for the current season. Nigej (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Challenge Tour articles

I'm of the view that individual articles for the Challenge Tour (snooker) are not necessary. These are minor events. Surely a list in the main article with the result of the final, together with an external link to the results will be sufficient. We currently have red links in the main article and in Template:Snooker season 2018/2019 which could readily be removed. Snooker season 2018/2019 does not have red links for these events. Nigej (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Is the revived Challenge Tour strictly an amateur event? As a rule we don't establish individual articles for amateur events because it is difficult to demonstrate notability. Individual articles have been created sporadically for several high-profile amateur events (such as the IBSF World Snooker Championship and EBSA European Snooker Championship) but the new Challenge Tour seems to be more a revival of the International Open Series which never had separate articles for the events. My default setting for amateur events is to not create articles unless notability for each individual events can be explicitly demonstrated. I certainly have no objection to the removal of the red links (provided it is known for sure that Main Tour players are categorically not playing in these events). Betty Logan (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it is really an "amateur" event, not in the sense that I would use (ie minimal prize money), even if World Snooker calls it "amateur", which is odd to me with a first prize of £2000. However http://www.worldsnooker.com/world-snooker-challenge-tour-201819/ says "Each event will consist of the top 64 from the 2018 Q School Order of Merit (who have not qualified for the World Snooker Tour) plus a maximum of eight wild cards, giving a maximum field of 72 players." so it seems current main tour players are not competing. I'm just thinking they are such minor events that hardly anyone will be really interested in the details and removing the red links will perhaps discourage their creation. As you say, there are similarities to the International Open Series. Nigej (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree. If Main Tour players are not competing I can't imagine there will be much general interest in these events. Heck, I have a what I would consider a "specialist" interest in the game and I'm not really interested in the results beyond whom actually graduates to the main Tour from them. Maybe there is a sensible compromise here where we could have just a single season article along the lines of Players Tour Championship 2012/2013. It would allow us to maintain an Order of Merit for each season which is probably the most important part of this event. Betty Logan (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Seems an excellent suggestion to me: 2018/2019 Challenge Tour perhaps. Nigej (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
That's ok by me, but don't you think it should be Challenge Tour 2018/2019 to be consistent with Snooker season 2018/2019 and Players Tour Championship 2012/2013? I suppose it doesn't really matter whether the season comes first or last in the title but I would rather have consistent approach. Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I have created Challenge Tour 2018/2019 with a link from Challenge Tour (snooker) and have added it to the Template:Snooker season 2018/2019. Basically just a copy from the Snooker season 2018/2019 article. Hopefully some keen person will expand it. Nigej (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Quick side note - Should these season articles not be written in dmy format? It's weird seeing the article written in dmy for the prose (And infobox), but the events table being written in mdy. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. It is confusing. Personally I prefer "2–3 Jun" or "26–27 Sep". I suppose the problem is compatibility with the Snooker Season articles. Nigej (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Not really sure what's wrong with it just being changed to the opposite way round. The Snooker season articles should be the same. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
To me "02-06" is inherently confusing. "2 Jun" or "Feb 6" are clear, even if they are the opposite way around to your normal usage. See also: MOS:DATE Nigej (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
We could easily change this to that standard. I can't see that it would upset the size of the table. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Six Red

Any ideas why there's some ambiguity in this template?:

What's the deal with the Six-red World Championship for 2009 being placed as a "see also"... Was it not the world title that year? What makes the Grand Prix any more viable, and also listed in the Six-red World Championship article. I see it says it was a rival tournament, but has anyone got any details? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

As you say, I think that because it was not organised by an official body it is regarded as not being part of the main series. It seems from the article that the first two official ones were organised by the Asian Confederation of Billiards Sports before being taken over by World Snooker. All a bit confusing. Nigej (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Although what constitutes a "World Championsip" can be quite confusing. I'd love to have a source that explained the situation. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The Sangsom World Championship wasn't technically a world championship for the first two events, but they are retrospectively considered as such. The 2009 888.com event was a one-off event that failed to get of the ground. After the 888.com event flopped the Sangsom event assumed the role of "world championship". Since it is ostensibly the same event it would be churlish to not consider the 2008 & 2009 editions as world championships. In that sense it is no different to the World Professional Match-play Championship which was a rival to the official world championship back in the 1950s and now accepted as such. I have altered the template to try and make it clear these are two rival world championships. Betty Logan (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Frame-by-frame scores

There used to be a rule in WP:SNOOKER that frame-by-frame scores were not to be added: see eg Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker/Archive_4#Score_updating, Talk:2011_World_Snooker_Championship/Archive_1#Overnight scores etc.. These date to 2010 and 2011 but my recollection is that there was a later discussion on this topic (but I may be wrong). For some time we've let this subject go. The current issue is that now a user is using eg 0−3 in 2018 Indian Open to highlight the current score, like a flashscore. When I removed the highlighting they were reinstated with the comment "with highlighting of the live scores it is better to distinguish from the final score". I think we need a new discussion on the merit of frame-by-frame scoring and a proper decision on whether they should be used or not and, if so, how.

My own view is that we should not have frame-by-frame scoring. The only exception I would go for is the case of multi-session matches (World Championship and some finals) since there is a significant time gap between the end of one session and the start of the next. Although we are an encyclopedia, many users do expect to see scores when matches are not "in play". Nigej (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not personally against the live scoring, but it does need to be decided one way or the other. I'd mention anyone adding the above wouldn't have read our MOS anyway, so it's pointless. I raised this a couple weeks ago, but it was simply noted that too many IPs live update.
As these updates are usually correct, I don't see it being too much of an issue. Snooker is played slow enough that it doesn't make that much difference. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The rule still exists but is now located in the style guide. It can be found at WP:LIVESCORES. The reason we have let it go is because it is impossible to enforce with 3RR in place. Even if you, Lee and I tried to enforce it through brute force we would run out of reverts and lose by default. I am happy to participate in the discussions about this but reaching an agreement has never really been the problem, the question has always been how we can enforce the rule. Betty Logan (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, the other option is WP:RPP... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The problem I guess is one of escalation. First frame scores, now fancy colours for in-play matches, next ? I suppose we can just let it go. It's only a minor irritant. I hate the tables like this: Paul_Hunter_Classic#Stats but its not worth making a fuss about; someone obviously like these stats even if they seem utterly pointless to me - Tom Ford is ranked equal 12th - what does that mean. Nigej (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The above is clear Statistics cruft. I've worked very hard before to get tables like these removed from sport articles. I have no idea what they show, over some prose that says who the most experienced player is, or similar. We already have a table that lists the winners above it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I would have absolutely no problem with that table being deleted. Table redundancy has been a growing problem on many articles, not just sport ones. Betty Logan (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Marvin Lim Chun Kiat

Marvin Lim Chun Kiat from Singapore is playing in the 2018 Six-red World Championship. This is the form of his name used by World Snooker. We have a number of red-links to Lim Chun Kiat (presumably his real name). I have already changed some Chun Kiat Lim references to Lim Chun Kiat. We also have red-links to Marvin Lim (presumably his westernised name). Are we worried about this or do we just leave alone? Nigej (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

There is only an issue if the article is created, but not the redirect from these articles in my eyes. He has lots of official names, not a big deal. we could choose to pipe links to one place, but is the guy notable? Shouldn't we simply remove the red link if he isn't notable? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Seems to me that removing the red links but leaving many different versions of his name is not very encyclopedic. Why not just put A N Other? Anyway, maybe he's a big noise in Singapore? with ~20 red links. BTW Found him called Marvin Lim Chun Kiatt in 2015 World Cup (snooker), which I have changed. Nigej (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
We shouldn't have links to non-notable people. If he is, it would perhaps be in our best interest to simply make a stub for him, and make redirects with the other names, as redirects are WP:CHEAP. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
If you have the same guy popping up multiple times in notable tournaments then I think there is a strong case that he is notable or soon will be. Generally we only create articles for players who make the main tour, although that is just a rule of thumb and not binding. I would rather have a bunch of red-links that go nowhere than a situation down the line where we create an article for the guy but have unlinked his name everywhere. If there are multiple variants I would just use the version of his name that appears in the draw, and if an article is created at a later date we can just set up a few redirects. Betty Logan (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
However in 2018 WSF Championship we have him as Marvin Lim but in the reference http://www.esnooker.pl/turnieje/2018/wsf/en2/show_drabinka.php?id_t=211 he is Lim Chun Kiat. Perhaps best left alone for now. Nigej (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I've seen enough editors call for deletion at AfD for BLPs that have got a tour card for the following season, so it seems unlikely that it's simply a rule of thumb. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say that creating an article for a player on the tour was automatic, but meant that being on the tour is generally a prerequisite. There are exceptions where a player who hasn't been on the tour could survive an AfD, and exceptions where a player on the tour would not, but either way there is a strong correlation between notability and the pro tour. If a player gets through to a third season on the pro tour I am all in favor of creating the article and letting it be tested at AfD because I think it would require fairly exceptional circumstances to be deleted. This is tangential to my point though because we are not actually debating whether there should be an article, but whether there should be links. I appreciate that some editors dislike red links, but I just think if somebody's name keeps popping up in articles about notable tournaments then there at least exists an argument that he is notable and if we haven't tested that argument yet we probably shouldn't jump the gun on the links. If somebody removed them I wouldn't revert, but this is just my personal preference. Betty Logan (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi all, Could someone at some point do a GA review of the 2018 World Snooker Championship? I'm willing to do a review-for-review in any topic. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Order of sections (again)

Normally we have the qualifying results after the final stage results. However for the current 2018 Paul Hunter Classic we have the "Amateur pre-qualifying" before the main draw. The same applies to eg the 2017 Gibraltar Open "Preliminary rounds". I suppose the difference is that these pre-qualifying/preliminary rounds are at the same venue rather than taking place in the UK weeks before the main event. Anyway the question is whether the pre-qualifying/preliminary rounds should go before or after the "main rounds"/"final" sections or before them. Nigej (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It is consistent with previous PHC articles, but personally I would always have the main draw first. I suspect most readers aren't that interested in the amateur rounds. Betty Logan (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, they are all qualifying. I suppose the closest approximation as to why this is done this done this way, would be the wildcard rounds at the masters Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree the main draw should come first. I hadn't read this section previously, but as 2018 was already switched I have gone ahead and done the same with 2016 and 2017 for consistency. Andygray110 (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

2018 Indian Open

The 2018 Indian Open will now be played in 2019. Any ideas? Just move it to 2019 Indian Open? Nigej (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm...my immediate reaction was that would be the obvious thing to do, but if the 2019/2020 Indian Open is played in the same slot then what would we call that one? I think there is a strong case for keeping it at the current title (considering it is just a postponement. There is a precedent for this at 1971 World Snooker Championship (played in 1970). Betty Logan (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
We already have rather convoluted names: 1993 European Open (1992/1993) / 1993 European Open (1993/1994) and 1999 British Open (1998/1999) / 1999 British Open (1999/2000) for events played twice in a calendar year, so 2019 Indian Open (2018/2019) / 2019 Indian Open (2019/2020)? Not the prettiest. Nigej (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
If there is a already a formalism for this then I agree we should follow that. What would we do? Move it to 2019 Indian Open and then move to 2019 Indian Open (2018/2019) if there is a second event in 2019? Betty Logan (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

My proposal is to move to 2019 Indian Open and see what happens next season. An IP user has already changed the text in the article to "2019 Indian Open". Nigej (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! The important thing really is to just be consistent. Betty Logan (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
shouldn't pre-empt next years event. Change to 2019 Indian Open. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Listing half a scoreline for finals that haven't been played yet

I noticed that 2018 European Masters lists the score of the final (to be played next weekend) as "9–". Not only does this look silly, it is also factually wrong (no score exists yet for that game, and when the game starts the score will be 0–0, not 9–x). There should not be a 9 there until a player has won 9 frames. Until that point, the final can technically be won by walk-over, so it is not correct to presume that the final score will be 9–x either. I consider listing the 9 a breach of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. For all those reasons, I removed it, but someone put it back 10 minutes later.

I noticed that listing this half scoreline seems to be the standard for upcoming tournaments (e.g. 2018 English Open (snooker)). To avoid an edit war, I came here to have the discussion. In my opinion, the policy should be to have these half scorelines removed. Per89 (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, and Nige has raised a related issue at #Frame-by-frame scores. The score shouldn't be added until the end of the match and therefore subject to no further change but it has proven impossible to stop this practice. You revert and within 5 minutes the information is re-added. As the 3RR rule stands, you'd burn through your reverts in no time and get blocked if you pressed the point. Betty Logan (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Sure, however this is even more silly. If a game in progress is at 0-1, and an IP or general editor wants to place that information up, as much as it is against guidelines, it doesn't fit with me as being too much of a big deal, as at least the information is right. However, we are talking about matches that will happen in the future (Sometimes months into the future). As much as it shows that the game is say, a best of 19, you wouldn't see such a thing in, say, darts, or any other game, where the final is played to a certain amount of points, sets or frames.
I always found this in particular to be fustrating, as the moment the game actually starts, the score goes from 9– to 0–0 (or 0–1). We do, of course have a solution, with that being page protection for tournaments in progress, and for events where editors are clearly going against our guidelines.
I'm yet to see a single editor talk to us as to why they feel the need to add this information. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with all of this, but on the scale of problems it's a 2 or a 3 out of 10 (i.e mildly annoying rather than damaging), and perhaps getting pages locked down to prevent it would be ultimately more disruptive to article development? I am sure these edits are well intentioned so perhaps we could try adding hidden notes first asking editors not to do it and see how that goes? Betty Logan (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with that being the best course of action for right now. I suggest editing our MOS (perhaps bolding the information about not live updating), and leave hidden notes in new articles linking to the MOS. Could well be that people simply don't realise that this is against Guidelines. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps <!-- Please do not update scores in this article until matches have been concluded as per [[WP:SNOOKER/MOS]]. -->, and <!-- Please do not update the final result until the match has been played --> for the final score of the infobox.

2019 World Seniors Championship

2019 World Seniors Championship has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 World Seniors Championship. This is a neutral notification notice since the article comes under the scope of WikiProject Snooker. Betty Logan (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Seniors events

Acording to the official press release, the WPBSA mentioned that all Senior events are "ranking" events. [11] "which during the 2018/19 season will run a full calendar of six World Seniors ranking events." Is this likely to actually lead to an official Seniors world ranking? And, in this case, are the 6-Red, and Masters variants also ranking events, wheras they would be non-ranking and "variant pro-am", in the main tour?

Or, is this simply using bad wording to describe them as "main senior championships". Anyone have any further information? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)#

Update - It seems as though they are doing an official world ranking list: [12]. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

They are only using ranking points for qualifiers in these events.the legends of the game Hendry, White, Doherty etc will not receive any ranking points.so it is better to leave Seniors events as non ranking events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.16.135 (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said only some players the qualifiers are receiving points and the legends are not. It does seem a bit odd to be fair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.16.135 (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Event finals table

During a WP:GA review of 2018 World Snooker Championship, the reviewer brought up the redundancy of the table for the final. He suggested that a table looking like so would reduce redundancy.

Final: (Best of 35 frames) Crucible Theatre, Sheffield, 6 & 7 May. Referee: England Brendan Moore.
John Higgins
 Scotland 		16–18 Mark Williams
 Wales
Players Session 1: Higgins (3) – Williams (5)
Frame 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Higgins 23 15 35 60 120 (119) 0 98 (52) 82 (59) N/A
Williams 75 65 72 70 (55) 4 133 (95) 0 21 N/A
Players Session 2: Higgins (4) [7] – Williams (5) [10]
Frame 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Higgins 46 75 (51) 128 (127) 12 85 (56) 123 (117) 0 35 43
Williams 81 (72) 31 8 76 9 15 123 (118) 64 80
131 Highest break 118
4 Century breaks 2
16 50+ breaks 14
Wales Mark Williams wins the 2018 Betfred World Snooker Championship

Obviously, this would need to be interpreted into the {{32TeamBracket-WSC2}} template; but it does make sense to me. Any thoughts? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The double-sided nature of the frame-by-frame scores is indeed bonkers. Do we do it for any other tournaments or just the World Championship (through the template noted and {{32TeamBracket-WSC}} since 1982)? If so we should definitely change it. Personally I'm not keen on the suggested style. I'd prefer the usual style we use eg 2018 Northern Ireland Open#Final but I'm open to anything. Nigej (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Agree about the redundancy, and like Nigej I prefer the Northern Ireland format. That said I don't oppose the suggestion above. The current version is the worst of the three. Betty Logan (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I think I prefer the rigid table, to be honest. It's quite visible as to who has the upper hand. Maybe I'll do a bit of work on the aesthetics. In terms of a rollout, this is clearly on a lot of tables. I no longer have access to AWB, and wouldn't know how to program a change like this across a load of articles. Is there someone we could contact who would be better at using the software if we had a better version. (It's a lot of articles to change). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The problem with the proposed table is that it has Higgins above Williams when we have columns where Higgins is to the side of Williams. All very mixed, unless we go for a complete change to the style. As to seeing who has the upper hand, the cuetracker style: "Match progress 1-0, 2-0, 3-0, 4-0, 4-1, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 7-5, 7-6, 7-7, 8-7, 9-7, 10-7, 11-7, 12-7, 13-7, 14-7, 14-8, 14-9, 14-10, 15-10, 15-11, 15-12, 15-13, 15-14, 15-15, 16-15, 17-15, 17-16, 18-16" is an optional extra. Another point occurs to me now: Should be have the winner on the left, r/u on the right, rather than by the draw. Nigej (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
If its only 37 articles, that doesn't seem too bad to me. Happy to help. Nigej (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it should matter which side the winner is on. I've made a few changes to make it look a bit more consistent Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I've copied the existing template into my sandbox {{User:Lee Vilenski/32TeamBracket-WSC2}}, and will make some changes to test this. Feel free to comment on how the table should look. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The structure of the table should ideally reflect the draw. You are not going to know who the winner is until the end of the match anyway, which could mean completely rebuilding the table if the winner always went on the left. Betty Logan (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy to leave the left/right as draw. Still not keen on Lee's table. Looks very messy to me; I much prefer the "prose" style we use currently use elsewhere. I did try a vertical style (User:Nigej/sandbox) but that looks even worse. Nigej (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

- it does need to reflect the draw. I'm ok with it being either in a table on it's own, or as a section on it's own. I did a bit of work, which can be seen here: User:Lee Vilenski/32TeamBracket-WSC2/test Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I still hate the frame score boxes. Prose style for me. Nigej (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Split of Ronnie O'Sullivan

This article is ridiculously sized for a GA - Prose size (text only): 76 kB (13059 words) "readable prose size". Although WP:TOOBIG doesn't have specific sizes for definate splits, shouldn't something like this be taken into account? I see someone has attempted to move particular seasons to new articles, but I think a split of his whole career to a new article, and be summarized in this article. Does anyone think this is a good move? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the best approach would be to turn 2017/2018 Ronnie O'Sullivan snooker season into a general career article and port all the seasonal stuff into it? I agree with the observation that the article is getting too large and we are going to have address this issue down the line. We seem to be on the same wavelength here because I suggested something similar at Talk:Ronnie O'Sullivan#Layout Changes and Suggestion 15/04/2017. Betty Logan (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The 2017/2018 Ronnie O'Sullivan snooker season is a bit OTT, I think, and pretty useless on its own. Doesn't seem likely anyones going to produce the remaining 25 or so of these, even if we wanted them. Nigej (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Or move the stats into a separate article with a brief stats summary left behind, as per lots of tennis players. Nigej (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

SUMMARYSTYLE and NOTFANSITE suggest that there's far too much detail in those season summaries. Also the lists of finals are quite indulgent. Compare, for example, the way a Featured Article like Arsenal F.C. or Liverpool F.C. deal with 100+ years (when they've also won the odd bit of silverware) in their history sections. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps both: an article with the detailed season by season text and a separate stats article. Leaving behind a career summary and the essential stats. Nigej (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think you'll get a consensus regarding those results/finals tables, as they are standard across Snooker bios. It could however, be a seperate wiki article. However, the sheer amount of information in the career section is worth moving into it's own article.
Personally, I don't mind each section being long. There are lots of matches and lots of tournaments in a season, and for a sub-article, this doesn't seem like excessive details. But, for an article this size, the career section is a bit too big now to be in the main article. It should be mentioned, that Stephen Hendry, who has just as many championships as Ronnie has a tiny article in comparrison. Prose size (text only): 21 kB (3681 words) "readable prose size" Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Check out how daughter articles are used in the FA biography of the ultimate sporting over-achiever: Don Bradman --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Or like Tiger Woods where we have Professional golf career of Tiger Woods (prose) and then List of career achievements by Tiger Woods (stats) and even List of tournament performances by Tiger Woods (more detailed stats). Nigej (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

it's pretty clear this is a good idea. I do lean towards the Professional career of Ronnie O'Sullivan as a full-content copypasta split. Then, work on condensing the prose already used. If no one has an issue with this, I'll do this later. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I fully support this but it might be wise to drop a notice of this discussion on the ROS talk page and at least leave it 24 hours. No point doing a load of work just to see it all reverted later in the day. Betty Logan (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Professional Snooker career of Ronnie O'Sullivan is now a thing. All that needs doing (By anyone who gets a bit of time), is to create a summary of Ronnie's Career for the main article. I started to write one, but I then realised even writing just his major finals was quite a long job! Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

2018 UK Championship review

Hi all,

I'm attempting to get all triple crown events up to GA starting with 2018 World Snooker Championship (which is under review right now). Could someone take a look at the UK Championship article, before I send it off for Copyediting, to make sure I haven't broken any policies on layout, or similar (I'll add some pictures from WikiCommons later). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Revision templates

Sorry to bring lots on, but is there any need at all for these templates:

{{Snooker Top 16 2011/12|1}} {{Snooker Top 16 2011/12|2}} {{Snooker Top 16 2011/12|3}} {{Snooker Top 16 2011/12|4}}

Surely one for the end of the season is enough? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No. Template spam. Betty Logan (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Personally I'd get rid of the lot. Who needs them? Category:Snooker rankings navigational boxes has Template:Top ten Chinese male snooker players,Template:Top ten English male snooker players, Template:Top ten Scottish male snooker players, Template:Top ten Welsh male snooker players, Template:Top sixteen professional snooker players,Template:Snooker Top 16 2008/09, Template:Snooker Top 16 2009/10, Template:Snooker Top 16 2010/11, Template:Snooker Top 16 2011/12, Template:Snooker Top 16 2012/13, Template:Snooker Top 16 2013/14, Template:Snooker Top 16 2014/15. I'd be happy to see all of these go. The "current" one are always out of date and the "historical" are useless. Nigej (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 17 for discussion in Templates for Discussion. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
All gone. Thanks. Nigej (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME articles

I've had a look through a lot of our articles such as the Welsh Open (snooker) articles, and the years (say 1997 Welsh Open (snooker)) is the only 1997 Welsh Open article. Can we just move these on mass? This also is similar with the Scottish Open (snooker) articles. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a right mess. It came up a while ago with the UK Championship. Someone got rid of the (snooker) bit and we've carried on without since but the earlier ones were never moved, even when they could be. On the other hand, someone recently added (snooker) to the International Championship (snooker) pages (Talk:International Championship (snooker)) on the basis that the bare name was too common. The same could perhaps be argued elsewhere. Plenty of Scottish Open golf tournaments, its just that we don't create articles for them individually. Basically, though, I'm of the view that we shouldn't have the (snooker) when there's no other article. Nigej (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
That was very much my opinion too. I'd brought it up in a few places, but there are several Welsh Opens; such as the dart. I feel like we have enough articles and enough coverage to warrant it being the common name regardless. I'll do a WP:BOLD move on some of these. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Should also mention that 1981 International Open and 1982 International Open exist... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I believe the year-articles (such as 1997 Welsh Open (snooker)) are disambiguated if the main tournament articles are disambiguated (such as Welsh Open (snooker)). This is to be compliant with the consistency criterion at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA i.e. when naming the tournament articles, we name them collectively as a topic rather on a per article basis. At least this was how it was historically done at the Snooker project, although the formalism does seem to have broken down a bit in recent times. Betty Logan (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Chris Melling (pool player)

Could someone take a look, and add his list of ranking events (as he used to have a 2-year card). I have tried in the past, but it takes me ages, and I miss most of the tournaments. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The same thing for former pool champion Alex Pagulayan Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Melling is now done, was a tricky one. Andygray110 (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Tournament articles match ordering

Hi all,

I recently put through 2018 World Snooker Championship through a GA, and there were some comments regarding how matches should be ordered at Talk:2018 World Snooker Championship/GA1.

The crutch of the matter, is should match results be posted in a chronological order, or be in a specific order. Reviewer Sportsfan77777 commented that this particular article should be layed out as:

  • the two biggest upsets
  • the other four upsets
  • the three world champions who advanced
  • the other three "exciting matches" (either come-from-behind or 10–9) where seeds won, and
  • the remaining four in chronological order

I was ok with this, however, it would be nice to get some consistency across articles that have this level of prose (This is only the fourth Snooker tournament GA, after the articles on 2004 British Open – 2004 European Open – 2004 Grand Prix, which don't go into this much detail (GA nominations from years ago).

I'd like to get quite a few articles up to GA level, however, I'd also like to promote 2018 UK Championship, which has 64 first round matches, so I'd like some comments on how to deal with this. IMO, We should be mentioning in this order, if it happens:

  • Top seeded player being defeated (From 1-16) by someone outside top 16.
  • If Reigning champion\world champion is defeated (Not in top 16)
  • previous champions being defeated (not in top 16)
  • other notable matches (for whatever reason)
  • Then, in list of highest seed to lowest seed in terms of winners.

Personally, I think we should ignore chronologically until the semi-finals of events. What is everyone's thoughts? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I was a bit confused about what we're talking about here. I'm assuming the First Round of the Tournament Summary, in the first example. Nigej (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The tournament summary in general, but yes, the first round in particular. The question is, how should we organise results in prose? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Having thought about it for a little while, I'm of the view that its only the World Championship and the Masters that need to cover all matches. For the other tournaments, only the most significant matches need be noted each round, just a handful at the most, I would say. I don't think we necessarily need to mention the top-16 winners or previous champions who lost. Who's really interested? Nigej (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Meta categories

In my attempts to cleanup WP:CUE, I've created some meta-categories, such as Category:Wikipedians interested in cue sports for anyone interested in pool, billiards or Snooker, and Category:Wikipedian cue sports players, for anyone who plays these games. These are good ways to find other users who play, or are interested in cue sports. I'd recommend joining the first one, as it'll be a good way to encourage users not familiar with the WikiProject to contribute. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Triple Crown final referees

This list http://www.worldsnooker.com/corporate/referees/triple-crown-final-referees/ seems to be something we should be using. As well as being useful for referee biographies and tournament pages, it seems to me that we ought to have the lists themselves somewhere. The question is, whether there should be an article Triple Crown final referees (or whatever) or each of the three tournament articles (eg Masters (snooker)) should have the list somewhere in them. I suppose it could either be added to the "winners" table in these three articles or a separate list. Nigej (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I was planning to do updates to the Triple Crown articles, and this source would be very helpful to do this. I feel like information like this should be a subsection of the Triple Crown article. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Willie Thorne Centuries

Bit of an odd one. On the Willie Thorne article, there's a link to this interview, where Thorne explains he's had 198 centuries. However, in the infobox, it says that it's 136, and the [prosnookerblog.com/centuries/ source given it's 128]. Cuetracker has this down as 136, so I'd suggest this is the value given in the article. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually it says he had 198 maximums. These were practise sessions, probably where the balls were all set up too. Nigej (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I remember a very funny interview once after somebody punched in a maximum. Willie was known as "Mr Maximum" and was boasting on air he'd had "a couple of hundred maximums". Hazel Irvine turned to Hendry in the studio and asked him how many he had made and Hendry replied that he "stopped counting when he got 1,000". Willie laughed and clearly didn't believe him. Personally I think Hendry was telling the truth. Betty Logan (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A boy in my class in primary school claimed to have made a 147 break on his own table at home. His table at home was a child's table. Not only was it much smaller than the genuine thing, but it only had 10 reds. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

These are clearly hilarious stories, but do we have a specific source for century counts? Cuetracker is out, so it seems like this figure is completely plucked out of thin air. The article cites a source that gives a completely different value in this case. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The number should be 126 according to Chris Turner's Snooker Archive and also this article. --BlueFire10 Let's talkabout my edits? 15:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The Mr Maximum nearly 200 claim should be stated. It's a very notable part of his story. If we can find a RS that pour scorn on it, it should be added too, but we shouldn't editorialise in mainspace, no matter how tempting. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC) There's also this He is the player that caused the "miss" rule to be introduced, after admitting he meant to just about hit the ball or miss it to gain the advantage in a frame in the lede, but never sourced, or mentioned again in the article. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

This "miss rule" reference is at best confusing, since there was an intentional miss rule going back a long time: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/180852911 Maybe refers to the modern version of it. Anyway not sure it was because of him anyway. Wasn't Alex Higgins involved? See this too: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VwTIBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT1&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q=%22miss%20rule%22&f=false Nigej (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed change to Template:Infobox snooker player

We have a clever system for updating a player's current ranking in the infobox, based around using Template:Infobox snooker player/rankings. This works ok. Normally (when I update it) I cut the official page and after some clever editing copy it in. The main problem is that World Snooker occasionally uses a different name to us. A particular example is Yuan Sijun which they have as Yuan SiJun. This results in his infobox not having his current ranking. The problem can be overcome by changing Template:Infobox snooker player/rankings from Yuan SiJun to Yuan Sijun. The problem with this approach is that we have to do this every time the rankings change. My proposal is to add an extra parameter "Ranking name". In Yuan Sijun's infobox we would have "Ranking name=Yuan SiJun". The proposed new source is at Template:Infobox snooker player/sandbox (the doc text is not updated yet) and the use of the parameter can be seen as Template:Infobox snooker player/testcases (compare Yuan's two infoboxes). Nigej (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

is this a widespread issue? If it's just one, why not change the article name? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
True. It could be a sign that we've got the wrong name. Nigej (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems a bit excessive to add a completely new parameter just to catch exceptions. It might be the only way though. Just hold off on it for a couple of days and let me think on it. If I can't think of a way around it then I have no objections to the proposal. Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, I have addressed this by adding a name field to the template: [13]. This can be done for any player. The template now works by effectively recalling itself if it returns a name: [14]. The code isn't pretty so I have documented it, but it has several advantages: i) a new parameter no longer needs to be added which will hardly ever be used; ii) the information can continue being maintained centrally. The downside is that it is not as a "clean" as Nigej's solution. Since Nigej oversees the updating of this parameter I am going to leave it to his discretion i.e. would he like to track all this information in the template or would he prefer to set the calling names in the individual infoboxes? If he would rather implement his own solution that is completely fine by me, I am just providing a second option here. Betty Logan (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm ok with any solution really. Could you explain to me how you manage this? I'd love to do something similar for pool rankings Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Home Nations Series statistics

Discussion at Talk:Home Nations Series#Statistics section. Nigej (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Eden Sharav became an Israeli

World Snooker now states that Eden Sharav is Israeli [15].--218.102.153.56 (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

We list him as Scottish of Israeli descent. We may need extra citations to confirm what this move actually means (I'm guessing he's still a Scottish citizen...) Worth keeping an eye on though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Seems that he elected to represent Israel since November 2018, see also [16]. ("Born in Israel, Sharav, 26, was raised in Scotland after his parents divorced. However, despite spending most of his life in Alloa, he elected to represent Israel, where his father still lives, on the professional tournament circuit.") Snooker.org also lists him with nationality Israel since the Northern Ireland Open in November 2018. CueTracker has him also with country Israel in the database. --BlueFire10 Let's talkabout my edits? 11:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Right now that doesn't mean we have to edit anything. He's clearly been playing as Scottish until 2018, and is listed as both already. I'd suggest changing the sporting country entry on the infobox to state when he changed his nationality. In the lede, it's hard to tell if he is still dual-nationality, or if he is officially an Israeli citizen (unless we inquired with world snooker). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.eso.workers.dev/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker/Archive_8&oldid=1137365076"