Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker: Difference between revisions

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2019/March; 2019/April; 2019/May; 2019/June; 2019/July; 2019/August; 2020/March; 2020/April; 2020/May; 2020/June; 2020/July; 2020/August; 2020/September; 2020/October; 2020/November; 2020/December; 2021/January; 2021/February; 2021/March; 2021/April; 2021/May; 2021/June; 2021/July; 2021/August; 2021/September; 2021/October; 2021/November; 2021/December; 2022/January; 2022/February; 2022/March; 2022/April; 2022/May; 2022/July; 2022/August; 2022/September; 2022/October; 2022/November; 2023/January; 2023/February; 2023/March; 2023/April; 2023/May; 2023/September; 2023/October; 2023/November; 2023/December; 2024/January; 2024/February; 2024/March; 2024/April; 2024/May;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:40, 5 January 2022

Snooker Project‑class

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Snooker, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of snooker on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SnookerWikipedia:WikiProject SnookerTemplate:WikiProject SnookerSnooker articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Shortcut

WT:SNOOKER

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 208.5 days may be automatically archived by .

Runners-up

This edit [1] has been done on a few articles. Seems suitable, but I had a look around to find out if there is actually a correct version of this word, and found very little. Generally the usage of "runners-up", means multiple people coming as runner-up, whereas we mean that the person has finished as the "runner-up" in multiple competitions. Webster just says that "runners-up" is the correct plural, but in my eyes that's a seperate meaning. Is it maybe worth changing this across our articles to say something different to remove the potential confusion. I think it's possible we are using this phrasing completely wrong. Therocket1990, any ideas? Maybe we could completely omit the amount of second places entirely, as we give the amount of finals, and the amount of wins? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought "runners-up" looked odd, but slightly less odd than "runner-ups", and I'm not sure either of them is correct in this context. I'd vote to drop it altogether: Ranking finals: 30 (20 titles).
Or maybe change it to: Ranking finals: 30 appearances (20 titles)? Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be much happier with "Ranking finals: 30 (20 titles)". Should be a reasonably easy task to automate if we did adopt it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'd say that's a good idea, so I'm for "Ranking finals: 30 (20 titles)" Therocket1990 (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again why does everybody nowadays want to remove and change everything ?. Why can't you guys ever just want to leave things alone like in Tennis or Darts. I want to know exactly how many finals a player has won and lost without having to go to the trouble of having to count them up if the runner-up finishes are removed. If it is not broken don't fix it. It is like people get bored and come up with these radical ideas to mess about with finals, centuries and now results. How come nobody messes zround with Tennis or Darts ?. 92.251.231.58 (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Runner-up finishes need to be included who is confused by it really not one person on this planet ?.omg sometimes I really do not believe what I am reading on here. Unbelievable stuff 92.251.231.58 (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DooksFoley147 you have been told many times to login to your account to edit. Your aversion to change is silly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

would anyone have any issues if we were to make these changes across the list of articles? I think we were in agreement that "runners-up" isn't grammatically correct. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on being WP:BOLD and making these changes in the coming days. Just need to work out the regex to get it done on WP:AWB. Please let me know here today if there are massive issues with doing this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally against these changes. Runner-up finishes have to be kept as they are in finals sections. A reader wants to know at a glance how many finals a player has won and lost by looking at the finals banner. A reader should not just see titles and then have to go into each section counting up in their head how many runner-up places a player has in their career. Has anybody changed this in Tennis ?. That seems to be left the same so why do we have to change this around with snooker ?. Are you planning to replace Runner-up finishes with finals lost or some other terminology?. It cannot just be left blank 178.167.240.131 (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you saw 5 finals (3 titles) you would be completely unaware as to how many runner-up finishes people have? We do not have anything to do with tennis, so I have zero idea why you are bringing it up. Do you really think a reader is unable to do simple mathematics? I'm also not convinced readers care about how many finals a person has lost. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it in the Tony Knowles article to the format "Non-ranking finals: 7 (2 titles, 5 times runner-up)" but an IP editor reverted to the old wording. "5 runners-up" seems wrong. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But that is your opinion that people don't care but I for one as a fan I do care how many career finals a players has lost. under the current system say Ranking events 18 runners-up, non ranking 14 runners-up, minor ranking 9 runners-up. I look at the players page and look at the finals section and I saw it is 18 and 14 and 9 = 41 runners-up straight forward simple. Now under your suggestion I only see titles listed. So I have to go into the Rankings section look at the finals try to remember how many they have lost i have to go to non Ranking and try to remember how many they have lost and then go to the minor ranking finals and try to remember how many they have lost, hope to remember all three and add them together.is that better or helping ?. 178.167.240.131 (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As above, the word "runners-up" doesn't mean someone finishing multiple times in second position, it means multiple people finishing in second place. We list the number of finals, and also the amount of wins, so you don't need to count them up, the information is plainly there. Our job is to convey information in an encyclopedic way, which for this section is to show their career finals, and what events they won. If it says "Finals 9 (6 titles)", are you saying that you are unable to take 6 from 9 and realise that they must have finished second in three of those finals?

I feel like your arguments are simply based on WP:ILIKEIT rather than actually trying to make the encyclopedia better. I'm happy to open this as a full WP:RfC, but I find it hard to believe there would be multiple users who would want to retain the current style. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is now being reverted at Stuart Bingham - can we get a consensus on how we want these to be set (and I'll set out a AWB run when I'm done with the century lists). I recommend:

===Ranking finals: X (Y titles)===

This shows the total amount of finals, and also how many they have won. With very simple maths, you can also work out how many finals they appear in where they indeed finish as runner-up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "Runners-up" or "Runner-ups" looks right to me. I'd prefer either "Ranking finals: 30 (20 titles)" or a new formulation like "(Ranking finals: 30 (20 wins, 10 losses)" or "(Ranking finals: 30 (20 titles, 10 times runner-up)". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I am now going through all of these and making the changes per the consensus. I am considering any reverts of this to be vandalism at this point, until a new consensus is met. A recent revert for finals: 5 (1 title) to finals 5: (1 title, 4 finalist) is really poor, as they have completed in five finals. Please do not change this without a consensus for better wording. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility issue with performance and ranking timeline?

See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Steve_Davis/archive1#Accessibility_review. Looks like we should probably change the format of the performance and ranking timeline, if my inexpert reading of that is right. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To meet MOS:ACCESS we should really meet AAA requirements. Basically our #CCC (and #CCCCCC) should be changed to #555555. Very easy to do - I can change it across all of our articles, but just want to get some confirmation there isn't a more suitable colour. This is currently in place at Steve Davis, so let me know what you think. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a sample edit [2]. Let me know what you think. I can run through the remainder on AWB. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been WP:BOLD and started the process. Let me know for errors. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

#555555 on #EFEFEF meets AA but not AAA for normal text, according to the checker I used (link). However, my reading is that it's OK for MOS:COLOR. Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The accessibility review used ##F8F9FA as a background. I know nothing about this at all though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. We actually have lots of different background colours used in these tables (in Davis's article for example), and I think the shading of the row and column headers comes from the wikitable template. I have no knowledge to add, but will note that the changes you're making are definitely an improvement. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should a qualifying event be included in a list of a player's career finals?

Hi, an IP editor has added "1953 News of the World Snooker Tournament Qualifying Event" to the list of finals at Rex Williams. I'm not sure that, as a qualifying event, this should be included. Views? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not - a qualifying event is not a "finals." P-K3 (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should be included as the Benson and Hedges Championship and The Masters Qualifying Event is included here and is counted on the Chris Turner Snooker Archive and other sites. It is a qualifying event and it has a final yes it should be included. However obviously QSchool which has multiple qualifiers would not be counted for example 178.167.135.207 (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these should be included. I'd argue the same for the Masters qualifying event. If the events sole purpose is to allow someone to compete in another tournament, that's not enough to be considered a professional tournament. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee that is your opinion and we all have them, but statisticians like Chris Turner, Clive Everton, Dave Hendon etc do count the Masters Qualifying Event as a professional tournament. It is included in their titles and century break statistics. It is wrong to just make up rules to what we believe. If statisticians count them they should be counted on Wikipedia. 178.167.135.207 (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way check the list of maximum breaks that have been made in the tournament and they are all on the official list of 147's with the tournament listed. For example Stuart Bingham's 147 is listed in the Masters Qualifying Event and it counts as a professional official 147. It was a professional event.There were so many professionals back then it was a way into the Masters. Like how the WPBSA Open Tour and Challenge Tour were professional events then, they would be amateur today as the tour has changed. 178.167.135.207 (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Century breaks are always counted in qualifying events Dooks...Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point the Masters Qualifying Event was a professional tournament in its own right which had a final to decide the winner. It was a professional event as it counted the century breaks and 147's which are rightly on the official list. As I said above it is used and referenced by all statisticians. 178.167.135.207 (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is it any different from any other tournament qualifying, other than one person progressed rather than multiple? Do any sources say the list of finals Rex was in, and include this qualifying event? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I'd don't think they should be included. Whether there is 1 qualifier of 2 or 16 doesn't make any difference to me. The argument that because there was 1 qualifier it is to treated as a separate event but if there had been 2 qualifiers if wouldn't have been, seem to me to be a very bizarre argument. The only exception would be if it was a genuinely separate tournament/event which had qualification for some other event as an extra prize. I'm missing the point about centuries/147s. Whether it was a separate event or simply qualifying for an event, doesn't matter - either way they are included in players centuries/147 totals. Nigej (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that qualifying events should NOT be counted as "career finals" because they are just an avenue into the main event. The one I'm mostly concerned about is the Masters Qualifying Event, which is specified as a non-ranking event (article infobox), but isn't listed in the Calendar in our Season articles (e.g. 2019/20 calendar). There's definitely an inconsistency here and we need to decide one way or the other. Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the clue's in the name: "Masters Qualifying Event". It was presumably a separate event, not just "Masters Qualifying". I see that in 1953/1954 News of the World Snooker Tournament someone (maybe me) has written "The qualifying tournament was played ..." which is perhaps incorrect - was it a tournament or simply qualifying? Nigej (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Baggins, to be fair, they do appear on the calendar, such as 2009-10 snooker season (we haven't had a qualifier since), but there shouldn't really be anything, as it's just a qualification round with one qualifier. I don't really see how they gain additional rights as a event in their own right. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the 1953/1954 News of the World Snooker Tournament, The Billiard Player, which by that point was the official organ of the BACC, referred to the matches between Williams, Lees and Lees as "The 'B' Section" and mentions about the results that "Thus Rex Williams enters Section 'A'" - i.e. the matches which we have under "Results" in that article. A and B sections sounds to me more like it is one tournament. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think Masters Qualifying Event is a little bit different, because it's a continuation of the Benson and Hedges Championship which was a tournament in its own right, with the trophy, prize money for the winner etc. I think for one season it was even designated as a minor ranking event and was open to all pros so it wasn't just a qualification for the Masters. As for other qualifying events I used to treat them the same way as the B&H Champs/Masters Qualifying, I've even added Regal Scottish Masters Qualifying Event to the list of some player's career finals but I was probably wrong in this regard. So I think I would leave the Masters Qualifying as it is but I would probably remove all other qualifying events from the section (Scottish Masters, General Cup, World Seniors, News of the World etc). Therocket1990 (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Masters Qualifying Event is in fact a tournament in its own right and I have 8 sources to back it up. The point about centuries is very easily missed by some by it is quiet easy to understand. (1) Chris Turner's Snooker Archive lists all 147 breaks, if a break was made in a qualifying round of a tournament he listed the break with a (Q) after it to point out it was in a qualifying round. At the end of the page he then has a footnote (Q) Achieved in a qualifying round. This is not the case for Bingham's 147 in the tournament that is listed under the tournaments name "Masters Qualifying Tournament". So Chris Turner did not see it was a qualifier but as a proper Non-ranking tournament which he listed the tournament as and the winners under. (2) The WPBSA players profile pages for the WST lists all the winners of the Masters Qualifying event in its Non-ranking section. It even points out that Stuart Bingham is the only player to win the Masters Qualifying Event twice all players wins are included. (3) Snooker.org lists all these events as Non-ranking event wins. (4) Global Snooker Centre covers these events and again the Masters Qualifying Event is listed as a non-ranking tournament. (5) WST.TV reports on the wins of Trump and Mcleod as winning a non-ranking event. (6) Sky Sports also report on Trump winning his first professional title in this event. (7) Snooker Scene reports on Neil Robertson's first 10 professional titles including the Non-ranking Masters Qualifying Event and finally (8) inside Snooker cover Mcleods and Trumps wins again. This can all be easily found. Regards 80.233.84.2 (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps rather than including them in the Non-Ranking Finals table, they could be included in a separate Qualifying Event Finals table? If they are a qualifying event to a main tournament they they don't quite carry the same weight. 146.199.211.135 (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why we shouldn't be including them at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:1985 Kit Kat Break for World Champions#Requested move 6 June 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1985 Kit Kat Break for World Champions#Requested move 6 June 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tour Players for 2021-22 season

Hi there, I posted this on Lee's talkpage, but was advised to post here. Owning to the fact that there are just 122 players on tour for the 2021-22 snooker season (due to the pandemic) and a large number of tournaments require 128 players to create the standard halving of players to reach the final stage, I believe its worth putting in a column for the guaranteed top 6 players from the Q School Order of Merit who did not earn a tour card, because they will be in the draw for every single tournament as top ups. However, I know this is not a normal thing to include because there hasn't been a season that required such a thing to be included, but since this season is the first not to have 128 players for god knows how long (more than a decade?), i think its worth including since WST have indicated they'll be using the top up list extensively this season. Admittedly, its likely to be just 4 Order of Merit players for the Home Nations [because there's likely to be 2 nation-specific players invited as amateurs], but the whole season will involve the same 6 invited players, unless otherwise noted on each events page. Thanks for your time. --CitroenLover (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its been a fair number of days, so on the basis of no response, I am going to add the Q School Top Up List of 6 guaranteed players who will feature in events to the 2021-22 snooker season article as a 3rd column, noting the exception of the home nations series, where WST may add amateurs from local governing bodies. --CitroenLover (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion seems a sensible one if the season commences as it stands, but you may be jumping the gun. World Snooker may award more wild cards, or may yet just award the top 6 a tour card. Betty Logan (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WST confirmed that the tour this season will have 122 main tour players and that the remaining 6 will be order of merit and wildcards from local governing bodies, the latter being for the home nations events. There are no further tour cards being handed out. —-CitroenLover (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After i added this relevant information to the page, two anon IP users [presumably the same user] have conducted an edit war over the inclusion of the information, which is officially sourced from WST’s pages. I’d like a resolution on this so the senseless edit warring on the topic doesn’t continue and require page protection. —CitroenLover (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a difference of opinion over semantics to me. Just create a new sub-section so they are separate from "new professional players". While I think your suggestion is sensible it should be explicitly clear that these players don't have tour cards. Betty Logan (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Especially since the anon editor is resorting to abusive language to make a point. 😔 --CitroenLover (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Haining Open et al.

I previously mentioned (see #Haining Open), that I wasn't sure if these articles met WP:GNG. For example, the 2019 event only has one source - the draw. I did a bit of poking around, and Snooker Scene didn't cover the event at all, and I can't find a single RS that actually comments on it. Would this be a suitable event to redirect to Haining Open? I am currently working on a good topic for the 2019-20 snooker season, every other event has plenty of coverage, but this one has next to nothing, and certainly nothing to show that it's a suitable article for wikipedia.

If there happens to be a load of Chinese language based sources that I don't have access to/can't find, then that's cool. Posting here, rather than opening an WP:AfD, as there is a suitable redirect target. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just wanted to let you know Snooker.org has covered this event with all the results on it's 2019/2020 season calendar. I just wanted to let you know. 31.200.165.185 (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the view that we shouldn't be covering minor events in such detail. We're an encyclopedia, not a repository of statistical information. Stats are better covered by other sites like snooker.org, we don't need to mirror their data. As noted, the scores for the 2019 Haining Open are on snooker.org - why are we simply replicating their scores? It's just a waste of effort. The same applies to the individual Challenge Tour events (eg 2019/20 Challenge Tour 1). We have Challenge Tour 2019/2020 which could be expanded to include brief summaries of the individual events. In summary: if an article contains just the scores with little prospect of anything else being added, then the article should be deleted and the event covered at the higher level article (eg Haining Open). Remember, just because we can, doesn't mean we should. Nigej (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much my thoughts - if we just have results, then that's hardly an article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that for an edition of tournament to have its own article, there should be some coverage beyond just results in independent websites, books, magazine or newspapers, unless there's another compelling argument, e.g. like it being a world championship for women or amateurs. I'd be happy with 2019 Haining Open being made a redirect to Haining Open. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Century lists punctuation

Hi! Me again - at the 2014 World Snooker Championship (nom) FAC, The Rambling Man brought up about adding semi-colons to the century lists, such as:

etc. as opposed to the numbers next to the names. I'm super neutral on this, and happy to make the changes, but wanted to open the floor to some other users. I'm happy to work on a script to do this full sale across all of our articles if deemed suitable. I think this is likely better grammatically than what we currently do, but it's not really my area. If no one has any issues, I'm happy to encorporate.:) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented on 2014 World Snooker Championship as per the request, this might give you a better example of how it looks in practice. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral too. The commas force a certain spacing between the numbers and the semi-colon does likewise for the number and name. I suspect the brain naturally finds it easier to separate a number and a word than it does to separate a long list of numbers, but I can't see any harm in adding one. Nigej (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, personally I'd prefer to use the spaced en dash as an interruptor, like so:

140, 137, 132, 130, 113, 108, 103, 102, 101, 100 – Neil Robertson
137, 112, 109 – Ricky Walden
136, 131, 124, 124, 118, 117, 113, 112, 108, 106, 103, 102, 100 – Ronnie O'Sullivan
136, 124, 116, 109 – Marco Fu
136 – Ding Junhui

I think it has better visibility than the semi-colon. Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I always read en-dash as being an interuptor as in separate information, rather than both parts being needed (as that's what the semi-colon does). It's the same reason why I wouldn't want to see:

106, 102 (Neil Robertson)

Etc. But then, also do we even need something really obvious to distinguish between the numbers and the words? Difficult for me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, just wanted to bring these up again, as it's been commented about on a couple subsequent FACs. I've added – tp the 2021 Tour Championship, but could we get consensus as to what we should do across all of our articles? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the options are (1) nothing (2) semi-colon (3) en-dash, personally I'd go for 3,1,2. In some ways it's a bit odd having the name last, but it avoids the need for a table or similar, I suppose. Nigej (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like everyone seems pretty happy with en-dash. I'll start making my way through the articles. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021–2022 Ronnie O'Sullivan snooker season

I've seen these articles pop up quite a bit, and I struggle to see how an individual season for an individual player is particularly notable, outside of a player winning the Triple Crown, or being particularly noteworthy. However, the idea we now have an article on 2021–2022 Ronnie O'Sullivan snooker season, seems crazy after only a couple days of the season. Does anyone have any further thoughts on these articles? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of the old one provides the reason to create the new one. They probably all ought to go to AfD on the basis that they're excessively detailed. Really Professional snooker career of Ronnie O'Sullivan should be sufficient, with perhaps a single statistical article covering his whole career. Nigej (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to do it BTW Nigej (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We could try just redirecting them all to Professional snooker career of Ronnie O'Sullivan.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We could, but an Afd would effectively stop the articles being recreated. Nigej (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New articles are being created: 2016/2017 Ronnie O'Sullivan snooker season. Nigej (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all sourced to the WPBSA. There isn't enough secondary coverage for this kind of article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to be WP:BOLD, redirect the lot, and then chuck to AfD if they get reverted Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The naming is also hugely inconsistent. We have:

I personally prefer the dashes, if we are to keep these articles. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and boldly redirected the latest article - with the view to do the same for the remainder. If this is undone, I will take to AfD. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created last four of these articles and I disagree with removing them. Personally I think there should be more of them for other successfull players. But that's only my opinion and I won't object if that's breaking any rules. So definitely I'm not gonna undone it. Peteri1994 (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any citations that describe the subject so that it would pass WP:GNG? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't. I just liked the idea. Peteri1994 (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any need for these articles to be kept or any further ones to be created what is the point really ?. Professional snooker career of Ronnie O'Sullivan is more than enough for all the information needed with more added all the time. 89.204.180.129 (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and redirected the lot of these. Let me know if I've missed any. I did notice one was moved to draft, but the template listed cross-namespace to that draft, which isn't great. I've removed all entries from it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of ranking tournaments

We have a table here: List of snooker players by number of ranking titles#Chronology of ranking tournaments, providing a sort of visualisation of all the ranking and minor-ranking tournaments thta have ever been player. The table is getting very unwieldy (and is out of date) and I'm of the view that it can be put out of its misery and be deleted. It seems to be in the wrong place anyway, and seems surplus to the List of snooker ranking tournaments and List of minor-ranking tournaments articles. Thoughts? Nigej (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, at the very best, it's on the wrong article. I think it's a WP:NOTSTATS issue, and should be deleted. A note of how the amount of ranking events changing over time might be a funky graph for an article such as List of snooker ranking tournaments, but otherwise, cull. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted it. Nigej (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three-letter code for sport countries in snooker

Hello. I just want to raise a couple of questions related to codes. Is the three-letter code after a player's name really necessary on this wikipedia? If yes, which set of codes shall be used? My concerns are the following:

1. ~~I didn't find any source supporting that WST/WPBSA is using a set of codes for their players' sport countries.~~ (Update: The code set exists.)

2. It seems that currently many snooker tournament pages on this wikipedia are using the FIFA codes for sport countries. There are notable differences between FIFA codes and IOC codes. One example related to snooker is Hossein Vafaei. When he competes at Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games, the country code is IRI in accordance with IOC. When he competes at 2021 British Open, the country code for Iran is listed as IRN.

3. What about Darryl Hill representing the Isle of Man, which does not have a code assigned by neither FIFA nor IOC. So CGF codes then?

--阿pp (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect we're generally using ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes. No reason for us to be using IOC or FIFA since snooker isn't covered by either. Nigej (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 is definitely not the codes currently used on pages like 2021 British Open. In fact using it might cause more trouble. IOC and FIFA both use GER for Germany, but in ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 it is DEU. Also, Switzerland will be CHE if using ISO, instead of SUI by IOC and FIFA. --阿pp (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True. Perhaps we're just using a random selection. Not sure that the WP:MOS offers any advice. Nigej (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on the details of which we are using, but they are indeed necessary per MOS:ACCESS, specifically MOS:FLAG. This has been a change made due to the supreme amount of flagcruft about. I think we simply copy from world snooker, so Hossien Vafaei is listed as IRN, Mark Allen as NIR, etc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However Lucas Klechers is DEU (https://livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/Players/PlayerDetails/14466/39709/lukas-kleckers/british-open-2021) and Alexander Ursenbacher is CHE (https://livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/Players/PlayerDetails/14466/2858/alexander-ursenbacher/british-open-2021) both per ISO 3166-1 alpha-3. Nigej (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Lee Vilenski: Moments ago I also find these profile pages and it brings another issue. Scotland is listed as SCT on the pages instead of SCO currently used on wikipedia. STEPHEN MAGUIRE (SCT). --阿pp (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I can't say I care too much what we use, so long as we are within MOS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we add something related to codes in here. --阿pp (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's added here. --阿pp (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation tags on Ronnie O'Sullivan

Hi there. I noticed a few ^{[citation needed]} tags on Ronnie O'Sullivan. As a GA it is expected to be devoid of those and I thought I'd give a heads up if anyone wants to fix that before someone else notices and submits it for reassessment. Cheers! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair it's only the career prize money that they are tagged, so I doubt it would be able to get as far as GANR. I don't personally think we have a reliable source that covers this up to date information, the best we do have is the occasional source that is a {{as of}} deal, which I'd be happier using. However, we usually just get people updating it with OR, calculating this by hand. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Events for snooker season articles

There's been a bit of edit warring at 2021–22 snooker season (amongst other places) about which events should be included in the calendar. We recently suggested (#2019 Haining Open et al.) that the Haining Open, and other small time events are not suitable for individual articles. An IP is suggesting that we include this event, as well as other independent events in the calendar section of our snooker season articles. Any thoughts? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with adding non-Main Tour, non-Seniors Tour and non-Womens Tour events to this article and other articles. Otherwise, if we add other events not part of these tours, the page will be filled up with every snooker event in existence, which is not feasible to maintain in the long term. Tournaments like the championship league should be documented because WST sanctions them for the world ranking list, despite not being run by WST, so they’re relevant here. A tournament that wasn’t open to any main tour players shouldn’t be added to the page, the same reason we don’t add every tournament just for amateur players here, those things hsould be on a separate article so they can be maintained and documented independently of the main tour. CitroenLover (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against including the recent editions in the main calendar, which should be limited to the most important events. Events like the Haining Open are clearly worth an article but that doesn't mean all editions of the Haining Open should appear in the calendar, only those that are sufficiently important, which in this case means 2014 and 2015. Nigej (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People talking about not adding "non-Main Tour, non-Seniors Tour and non-Womens Tour events", so are we also not going to add the upcoming Q-Tour events, like we did the previous Challenge Tour events? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8085:7160:3B80:CD96:D500:1808:262 (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of including that either; although an article covering the Q-Tour as a whole is probably warranted. The Haining Open is similar, but even less in structure, as it isn't a qualification event for the snooker tour, it's a simple one-off event played each year. There are hundreds of them each year. We don't include the English Amateur Championship, even though that is a qualification event and is notable for each tournament. We should be stricter in what we label as being relevant snooker events, rather than allowing any old event to be included. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that having on an article on this season's Q-Tour would be definitely worthwhile. What we don't need is a highly detailed article on each event. There's a good middle ground where the tour has an article in which the individual events are described. Nigej (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd work similar to how we've expanded 2019–20 Challenge Tour, which probably warrants a mention on the season article, but certainly not something for each individual event. The Haining Open is I'm sure very similar to a single event in one of these series, I don't really see why it would be suitable for that article. It would fit better in our "X in cue sports" articles, such as 2020 in cue sports. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then it seems like these articles should just be for the "Main Tour" events. You don't want to include the Haining Open or Q-Tour events, but want to list the woman's events, that are red-linked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8085:7160:3B80:DC5C:8475:3716:5C3F (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm not keen on having the women's or senior's events in it either. I'd rather have them noted in separate sections. Why not a separate section called "Women's snooker" with a paragraph or two about the season? Similarly for the seniors. They don't need a table at all, just some text. Nigej (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are only a tiny number of tournaments on the Womens and Seniors tours anyway and they only ever happen in gaps between the main tour events, so I don't mind them being in the main table since separate sections would be very small for not much benefit.

As for womens tour events being red links, those tournaments have only been added since this season, they aren't on the table for any previous season, so I don't mind someone going back through some previous seasons and adding them to the respective tables for consistency.

Agree to Q-Tour having its own article. Doesn't need the excessive detail we use on the main tour, but one page for each "season" of Q-Tour and a section for each tournament containing a summary of each tournament and a subpage for the draw of each would be more than sufficient for coverage of that. --CitroenLover (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd very much agree that the separate tours should have their own sections in the article on the snooker season. Replace the calendar with the list of events, and segregate per tour. Realistically, there should be a 2020-21 World Snooker Tour article which is summarised in 2020-21 snooker season, but also includes other events, tours etc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree the Haining Open should be included in the current snooker season as it has been included every other year. The only reason it was effected this year was due to COVID restrictions. There is too much emphasis on main tour events only as independently ran events were always added to the calendar. General Cup, Hainan Classic etc these were independently promoted and added. Seniors should stay on the calendar also Kentbobo (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Selby won the Haining Open two years in a row in 2017, 2018. Un-Nooh won it in 2019 all these wins are listed on the WST players profile career wins page so they should stay and remain on each season's calendar as that is the official source that counts. Haining and Seniors should stay but I think QTour and the women's events should have their own section Kentbobo (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The snooker calendar should not just be limited to main tour sanctioned events. The Paul hunter classic in 2019 was a Snookerstars promoted event but that is included. Again check WST and WPBSA players profiles. This is clear evidence for there inclusion Kentbobo (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see a new user interested in the snooker project! You should note that saying that we should include something because we've included it before, is regarded as a very very weak argument in these sort of discussions. We're discussing what we want, not what we did in the past. Another point is that we're discussing the format of the article. All the events you note can be included in the article, it's just a matter of which events should be in which sections. Whether events are noted in player's profiles doesn't seem too relevant to me. If you look at golfer profiles on the PGA Tour (as an example) you'll see that they often mention wins that were not on their tour, but that doesn't mean that we should include them as PGA Tour events. Also, personally I can't see any reason for including seniors events in the main schedule but not the womens. They seem very minor to me in their current setup. See World Seniors Tour which lists all the seniors events neatly and clearly in one article. I don't see why we need to clutter the main schedule with these few minor events. We've had a user in the past who was keen on very garish colours for these events which made the main schedule look even worse! Generally it's a good idea not to use colours at all in tables, only for very specific reasons. Always bear in mind that people are using many different types of device nowadays and what looks good to you might look terrible to them. Nigej (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "former" events

Hi. I've been looking on a number of articles about current and former players, and have noticed that we seem to have arbitrarily moved a number of tournaments from being "actual events" to "former" events. The tournaments in question are all tournaments which were not held because of a global pandemic. We do not have any source confirming that several of them are never going to be held again (eg China Championship, China Open, Riga Masters), so why are they now "former" events, when they are only temporarily off the calendar because of the pandemic? I feel that these should remain as "actual" ranking events and not be relegated to "former" status, with the requisite years marked as "Not Held (Pandemic)" instead of relegation as it currently is, because they are only not being held due to the travel restrictions in place preventing them from being held. Tagging @Nigej and @Lee Vilenski for sight of this discussion as well. Thanks. --CitroenLover (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, "former events" are events that have been held before, but aren't being held on the current calendar. This is in flux a bit, as any event can be removed/replaced or reborn at any time, as the British Open shows us. It is a bit confusing with the whole "former ranking, now non-ranking" or "former non-ranking, then ranking, now a former event" things that happen. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you. An event that simply misses a year is surely not necessarily a "former" event, especially at the current time. Perhaps we should have a rule saying that events only become "former" when they miss 2 seasons, unless there's a specific statement that the event has actually ended. Or is that too confusing? Maybe we've got to accept a certain amount of vagueness in the definition. Nigej (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I confirm we are talking about the "Performance and rankings timeline" section on player profiles? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was assuming that. Do we have any long term plans for this section? I think readers like it, but it's basically unreferenced, unless you go to the original tournamant articles. Nigej (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah to confirm, its the performance and rankings section on player pages. I think a good definition of a tournament being “former” is when its not showing in the calendar for 2 consecutive seasons and/or there are statements from WST / broadcasters that confirm the tournament is not being revived.

Obviously tournaments that were former ones pre-social media are just going to be assumed as former because many old ones have been revived with newer versions, but some older tournaments that came back — as said, the british open — should probably be checked over. That being said, i think we should probably move all pre-pandemic tournaments that haven’t been held back to the appropriate section in player timelines, as obviously they’re active events that aren’t running because of circumstances outside control of the governing body. It would be accurate to consider them cancelled if the travel restrictions are removed and they don’t show up on season calendars ofc. —CitroenLover (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I have to say it'd be a bit awkward to have events from previous seasons in the "current events" section. Nigej is right though, maybe we need to look a bit further into the table in general. I agree that they are useful... but they have some major issues. These are often uncited, and that isn't really excusable. I have cited a couple in the past, but I think we need to come up with a better solution. I think this needs to be more of a template maintained centrally, but I don't know how that would work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it probably ought to be using Wikidata. You load up Wikidata with the data. eg 2021 Northern Ireland Open (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q106800918) would need an entry saying that Judd Trump (who is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q313507) reached the quarter-finals. Or perhaps it's the other way round, Q313507 has an entry saying he reached the quarter-finals of Q106800918. Then you write a template in which you extract the data and produce the table, using the wikidata template. eg "{{wikidata|property|Q106800918|P580}}" produces "10 October 2021", the start date (property P580) of the 2021 Northern Ireland Open (Q106800918). All incredibly complicated. However, the main issue I've always had with Wikidata is how to verify that the data is referenced and ensure it stays accurate. After all, there's no one who has these things on their Watchlist. Or maybe it just shows that we shouldn't be doing this sort of thing at all. As to your other point, I suppose it depends what you think "former" means. I'd have thought "former" would be any event that couldn't plausibly take place in the nearish future, but that doesn't necessarily mean the current season. Nigej (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that any event could be announced tomorrow.

I'm not entirely sure wikidata is the way to go - it's so much easier to be attacked by vandals. And, you do get the exact same issues with things not being cited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any event could be cancelled tomorrow too, in which case there's only 1 current event, the one in play. I'm still struggling to think that the Open Championship was a "former" event, simply because they cancelled it in 2020. They showed a clear intension to play it in 2021 and that was sufficient I think. Nigej (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Held over matches

Seems we have some disagreement over the status of "held over" matches, This has come up in relation to the high break at the 2021 Northern Ireland Open, where it seems Allen's 147 got him the high break prize (see talk discussion page there) and whether the 147 counts as being "qualifying" or not. My first thoughts are that these "held over" matches are not qualifying, since traditionally qualifying matches were held at different times/venue to the main event. I guess the main problem is that we often talk about "qualifying rounds" and that doesn't fit neatly into the idea of treating held over matches as not being qualifying, when the other matches in the same round are. Nigej (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the WST counts these as being main stage centuries, so we should too. It's a bit awkward for when we want to put some prose in it, but that's why we have sources that make this sort of decision for us. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but we have Allen's match in a section called "Qualifying", and probably have done similar things in the past. In addition, I guess we should try to avoid using the term "Qualifying round(s)", preferring "Qualifying match(es)". See eg Maximum break where we have the legend "(Q) Qualifying rounds". Confusing in this situation since Allen maximum was, in some sense, in a qualifying round but, it seems, it wasn't a qualifying match. One thing that does seem clear to me is that the "Highest break" in the infobox should relate to the winner of the "Highest break" prize, since surely that was the original purpose of the parameter, and still should be. Nigej (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For an earlier example see 2018 China Open (snooker) where we have (for instance) Ronnie's break of 110 v Ross Muir in the "Qualifying" part of the century breaks. However the century appeared here: https://web.archive.org/web/20180411155529/http://livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/Centuries/CenturyBreaks/14008/fuhua-group-china-open-2018 ("Fuhua Group China Open 2018", described as "Heldover") not here: https://web.archive.org/web/20180504053228/http://livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/Centuries/CenturyBreaks/14007/china-open-2018-qualifiers ("China Open 2018 Qualifiers"). And similarly for other centuries called "Heldover" or "Pre Qualifiers". All the "Heldover" or "Pre Qualifiers" match results appear in the "Qualifying" section of our article. Nigej (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

template:infobox snooker player proposal

I've been removing a number of "nowraps" from the {{Infobox snooker player}} of player articles. Generally these have been added for those born in September (or some other month with a long name). See eg Martin Gould (nowrap removed) where the birth date wraps onto two lines. The reason this wrapping happens is that we're using the default of 20em for the infobox width. Some other sports override the default, for instance {{Infobox golfer}}, {{Infobox cricketer}}, {{Infobox NFL biography}} and {{Infobox AFL biography}} all use 25em and {{Infobox tennis biography}} uses 23em. Baseball uses a different style (eg Babe Ruth) which avoids the issue. My proposal is that we use 24em (ie add "| bodystyle = width:24em") - or 25 perhaps. See some test cases here using 24em: Template:Infobox snooker player/testcases. The increase in width is modest and in many cases we've been using wider infoboxes anyway because of the nowraps. Probably hardly anyone would notice the increase in width. Nigej (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - absolutely. We certainly don't need nowraps, but if it makes it look nicer, there's no issue there either. Just need to find the longest possible date and set it to that width. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might depend on the font being used, I suppose, but "22 September 2000 (aged 22)" which is equal longest for me (all digits except "1" being equal), doesn't wrap for me with 24ems (see Ian Brumby testcase here Template:Infobox snooker player/testcases). We can try 24ems and see if we get any complaints! Nigej (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping the gun, I know, but I've add the 24em. I'm only worried that someone is going to revert my removal of the nowraps without being aware of this discussion. Trivial to change anyway if this discussion leads elsewhere. Nigej (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even without adjusting the width, using nowrap in this way is totally against the MOS, so there is no reason for it to be reverted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that he's still doing it. See 2008 Premier League Snooker. Nigej (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing total century breaks

Hi all! We quite often have some issues with including career century break totals on our BLPs within the infobox as they are updated manually after each one, and is completely uncited. Regular WP:RS items such as Snooker Scene, or the BBC will often post specific stats, but these aren't updated, and are a snapshot for that time. I was having a look at some items that are probably non-RS, but at least give us a cited piece of information. As far as I can tell, outside of cuetracker, which is blacklisted, and we are aware of this not being accurate, we do have prosnookerblog.com/centuries/ and snookerinfo.webs.com/100centuries, (also both blacklisted) which are actually the same list, and [3] (hasn't been updated since Aug 2020). Does anyone know of any better sourcing than this, or any suggestions if we should make one of these reliable but only in this context? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I always look at snookerinfo.webs.com/100centuries which seems to be reliable and an extension of the old unpublished lists. The trouble we have is that this stat is quite widely talked about and it would be a shame to remove it completely from the Infoboxes. I'd be much happier getting rid of career prize money (for instance), the accuracy of which seems very dubious to me and for which there is little interest (does any commentator say "x has just passed £n million in career prize money"? No). Seems to me that we ought to limit the use of the centuries Infobox parameter to those that have reached the 100 mark (74 players currently). At least we've got something for these, whereas for the others we're struggling for sources and the reality is that there's very little interest for these players anyway, so maintaining their totals is simply not worth the effort. We could also add something to the template so that numbers less than 100 weren't displayed, even if someone added it. When I looked at the "Century break" parameter some months ago there were 419 articles with the Century break parameter used (5 articles had Century break=0 and 27 had it equal to 1). 41 had a reference after the number which was nearly always cuetracker (3 were prosnookerblog). There's a bit of an issue for the old-timers but I notice that we've got nothing in the Joe Davis infobox, which personally I think is quite sensible - better added to the text where the total can be put into context. Nigej (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. If someone has retired, there's a good chance that there might be an RS regarding how many century breaks they made, as it's a stable number. I'd be happy to make an exception for a list that seems more likely to be correct than to be completely uncited. It's not unheard of to have citations be reliable only in one specific context (for instance, cagematch.net is used for match results only in pro wrestling articles, not for any other information). Of course, they would have to be delisted from the blacklist (or at least that specific page whitelisted, so we'd need a pretty decent consensus first).

On the note of prize money, it's completely uncited, and we don't even give rules as to which tournaments qualify for it. You might see an article say that "O'Sullivan has made over £9m in his career", or that "Steve Davis was snooker's first millionaire", as well as season stats which are usually accurate. The BBC quite often has amounts listed during matches, but aside from that, I have no idea where it comes from, and it is quite crufty. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still think we can cull the ones with less than 100 centuries ourselves. As you say we'd need a wider consensus for referencing the 74 others from a currently blacklisted site but that could be left for a second stage. Nigej (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that this is another parameter where we could maintain a central list (like we currently do for the current ranking). The could then all be referenced in a uniform style. At the moment people are adding numbers based on their own research or perhaps from cuetracker without anyone noticing, especially for the more obscure snooker players. Nigej (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, certainly should be centrally maintained. Either by wikidata or Template:Infobox snooker player/century breaks or similar. When people have 50 odd edits to a single article with just century break updates it's a bit silly. We certainly shouldn't be updating them whilst in play as well. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In July 2004, Snooker Scene published a table of "total career century breaks" (from 1976 to 2004) and in some cases their figures are very different from what's in places like CueTracker. As an example, Snooker Scene had John Virgo on 26 centuries, whereas Cuetracker (which excludes doubles/team events, I believe) has 39. I guess they include different events. I recall that the WPBSA once called CueTracker "the world's leading independent snooker results and statistics database" ([4]), albeit in a context where you would expect them to be positive about it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this is partly because cuetracker has continued to add events (Pontins, Canadian, Australian) which were never in the original list and hence the cuetracker grand total is something of a moving target. I also think that in 2004 the "official" totals were also in a state of flux. I've found it impossible to make any sense of the official totals before about 2007. Nigej (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Infobox snooker player/testcases where the testcases on the right are using Template:Infobox snooker player/century breaks and not the infobox parameter. I've added an "as of" date but not added a reference so far. Template:Infobox snooker player/century breaks is a cut-and-paste job from snookerinfo.webs.com/100centuries and has issues relating to consistency of names (eg "100centuries" uses Mark J Williams, David B Gilbert) which would need sorting out. "100centuries" is updated daily. Nigej (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the argument will be, if we can't source this, and there's some disagreement about the actual totals, we shouldn't be staying it as official in an infobox at all. I have written an email to WST about potentially having something official actually written on their website, as they do give official figures, but just not in a suitable place. I contact them so much though, I suspect my emails just go straight into the junk folder! :P. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. However, I'm still of the view that we could put our house partly in order (reducing 419 fairly random numbers down to 74 from a single source), enough though that is not the complete solution. As you imply, the alternative is to bite the bullet now and delete the whole lot. Nigej (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's an argument that unless they have done a lot, it's not really relevant information. Sure records are important, and someone being in the top 10 or even 20 scorers of century breaks is relevant, and commenting on breaking 100 (or more centuries) is important info for the body. If other websites and sources don't keep a consistent list, why are we? I have absolutely no issue with a well cited piece in an infobox commenting on this, such as Paul Hunter having 114, acording to [5] (cuetracker claims 110, whilst snookerwebs also suggests 114). Chris Turner is deemed acceptable, and someone I would trust. But giving an amount based on Wikipedia editors counting breaks up is really poor IMO. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking a bit more on this, having the century breaks (if we do keep them) on one page that populates the template would make spotting vandalism so much easier. We can much easier keep the updates until after the event per WP:LIVESCORES, and put protection in place if things weren't to go right. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to remove the century breaks list from players that have not yet reached 100 ?. Just leave it alone people like Jamie Cameron are excellent at updating every players page. Snookerinfo.webs is 100% accurate. I know that he got Chris Turner's template and his numbers are always the same as Eurosports. I know he works on this with Dave Hendon and Rolf Kalb. Also people also get their figures from Eurosport prior to matches it showed Wakelin on 66 career centuries on the career graphic and that figure matched the one on Wikipedia. It would be a bad step to remove them for players below 100. As lots of people including Jamie put s lot of time into keeping the figures correct. 31.200.178.253 (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, we could cite specific broadcasts for the information - I don't see how verifiable the info would be after broadcast though. Part of the discussion here would be if we could suggest the list at snookerwebs is accurate, and use it as an RS in this specific case. Of course, as it is blacklisted, they'd need a very good argument for it being reliable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know Jamie does some updates on here - but is there any press about them being a reputable journalist? All I could see was it being self described and a blog. With all the best will in the world, we need to show that the figures come from a reliable source, and not just from someone on the internet. Even if people spend lots of time updating figures, that doesn't really matter to Wikipedia. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any list of centuries going below 100 (80 for current players)? Whether Wakelin's 66 is right or wrong is not the point here, it needs to be verifiable. Relying on specific broadcasts to occasionally verify the numbers is simply no good for us. As Lee points out, it's just a moment in time for the active players. Nigej (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the discussion so far has not been about whether to deleted the ones less than 100, its been about whether to delete just those or delete the whole lot. Nigej (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the information is useful to have on pages [though I agree it should be for those with 100 centuries or more, as there are rumours of one player thinking making a century is superstitious and thus avoids making them (Fan Zhengyi, i think?)], but like anything, there needs to be citations. If the info can't be cited to something and is not an obvious fact/common knowledge, it shouldn't be on the page imo. --CitroenLover (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell would we want to delete the whole lot for ?. Snooker fans want to know how many century breaks Ronnie O'Sullivan has or will end up with. The same for Trump etc. Don't remove them for god sake. Are you trying to ruin these pages or what ?. 31.200.162.181 (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summary/Proposed next step

We have one user wanting to retain the status quo but provides no solution to the issue, i.e. how to cite "career century break totals on our BLPs within the infobox". The issue is long-standing and there was an attempt years ago to resolve the issue by blacklisting some web sites. This has proved unsuccessful, editors simply adding unreferenced numbers instead. The general view above seems to be that moving to a centrally maintained list would be a potential solution, enabling tighter control. My plan (as a first stage) is to delete all instances of the "Century break" parameter in the infobox (using AutoWikiBrowser) and move to a central list stored in Template:Infobox snooker player/century breaks, initially populated by a list of 74 players who apparently have made 100 century breaks. I think this would be a useful first step and would hopefully lead to a focused discussion on what this "century breaks" file should contain. Detail:

(1) I already have a file (generated some months ago) containing a list of 426 articles in which the "Century break" parameter was set. I would delete all these (using AWB). I can then remove "Century break" from the list of known parameters which will then populate Category:Pages using Infobox snooker player with unknown parameters with those I've missed. I would maintain a list of those I delete which contain a valid reference.

(2) Move over to the centrally controlled list, per the Sandbox noted above which will use the Template:Infobox snooker player/century breaks file. There are 74 players included. For 72 of these the number there is exactly the same as is currently in the player's infobox. The Kurt Maflin article currently has 199 instead of 198 but this is perhaps some double counting. The only significant difference is for Steve Davis where we currently have 355. We have references for this but it's highly likely that this number can be traced back to cuetracker (which had 355 at the time of his retirement, and still does). Chris Turner (generally regarded as a reliable source) had 321 to the start of the 2011–12 snooker season (see https://web.archive.org/web/20110414214436/http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Centuries.htm (April 2011) and https://web.archive.org/web/20110724174049/http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Centuries.htm (July 2011)). 17 more in the next few seasons (per cuetracker - but easily checked) before his retirement gets us to 338). Anyway, a discussion really for stage 2, as also would be what to include from this reference: ""Centurions". Snooker Scene. July 2004. pp. 14–15." which we have in some articles.

Indeed. Good work. Davis has this Eurosport citation suggesting 355 [www.eurosport.com/snooker/world-championship/2019-2020/snooker-news-steve-davis-i-wasn-t-good-enough-at-game-s-main-skill_sto7742374/story-amp.shtml], although, I always worry that these figures are cyclical. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful approach to this, Nigej. Let me (a non-techie and non-AWB user) know if there's anything I can do to help. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever wanted to learn how to use AWB BennyOnTheLoose, I can teach you. There's a surprising amount that can be done without even looking at regex. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about maintaining the status quo as you call it. It is about keeping relevant and vital information about players careers in fairness 31.200.162.181 (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is that if we can't verify the number it's got to go, whether its relevant/vital or not. If you want to keep the stuff you need to come up with solutions to this issue. Nigej (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stage 1

I've switched over to the new system now. Most instances of the "Century break" parameter have been removed. I had some trouble with some articles in that it wouldn't let me save for blacklisting issues, but I'll get a list of those and others I missed in the coming hours (should populate Category:Pages using Infobox snooker player with unknown parameters). Anyway these remaining instances of the parameter will be ignored anyway since the template now uses Template:Infobox snooker player/century breaks instead. This currently has a list of the 74 players who've scored 100 centuries (extracted from snookerinfo.webs.com/100centuries), Steve Davis on 338 not 355, unchanged for the others. Active players have "(as of 7 November 2021)" appended", inactive ones don't (controlled by the same file). I found a number of articles using the Snooker Scene July 2004 reference which are currently removed: Tony Knowles (snooker player), Tony Meo, Jim Wych, James Giannaros, Mike Watterson, Mark Wildman, Jimmy van Rensberg, Geoff Foulds but which could be added back. This is just my initial stab at the "century breaks" file, we now need to decide what's in it (if anything), and how/when to update it (daily, after each event? Luckily we're in an inactive week, so no changes until next Monday). Nigej (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, would it be suitable for us to run a script to attack any blacklisted sites and replace with cn across our articles? I could probably write some regex to do that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would be useful, but I think there's still some mileage in simply deleting stuff. Nigej (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snookerinfo.webs is the site to use as was pointed it is ran by Adam Clark who got Chris Turner's spreadsheets when he passed away. He works with Dave Hendon to compile century breaks data for Eurosport 31.200.162.181 (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SnookerPlayer template

Hi all. Having worked on adding draws on pages for a little while now, I find the process of using flagathlete incredibly cumbersome. Most of this is down to adding the country code for the flag and the link, which is the same almost all the time and hardly ever changes (how many players over time have changed their sporting nation? I can only think of like, less than 5 people, who have done this). Have we considered looking at a Lua module with an intermediary template to ease editing requirements and simplify our editing workflows with regards of players? I am thinking of something like {{SnookerPlayer|Name of Player}}, which would work something like this:

The template would lookup a lua module list details about the page name for that player and what country they represent.
If the player is in the list, the template would prepopulate a call to {{flagathlete}} on behalf of the user
If the player canot be found on the list, the template would just return a link to that players' page, if it exists.

In my opinion, doing this would vastly reduce the burden of country codes and links being within the articles, as they would be pre-written elsewhere. It would also provide a centrally managed list of players that can be added once and are automatically available everywhere on the wiki. Basically, to the viewer, it would just be a flagathlete template but not directly calling that template. --CitroenLover (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. You'd have to pay attention to flags potentially changing, as well as players altering their nation (see Kurt Maflin, Eden Sharav for example. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought about that, but in those situations, it may be worth falling back to the normal standard of using flagathlete. Alternative is having an additional parameter to force a specific country code if someone has changed their sporting country, although that would make it no different to flagathlete, so for those cases I'd fall on the "use flagathlete". --CitroenLover (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee have you seen the way Darts adds their flags and players names it is much cleaner and simpler way than snooker does it ? 31.200.162.181 (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP User. Well, the darts articles don't meet MOS:ICON. The style of our tables and articles are designed to meet Wikipedias policies. If you are unwilling/incapable of realising that we have to meet the Manual of Style then maybe a collaborative project like Wikipedia isn't for you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at {{PDCFlag}} and while this matches what my discussion was about, our version would need to follow the policies on flags. Ultimately though, I can simply reuse the PDCFlag template and tweak it to follow the policies. :) --CitroenLover (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three-letter months usage

Per MOS:DATE we are allowed to use contractions of months (eg Sep 2001) "in limited situations where brevity is helpful" "For use in tables, infoboxes, references, etc." As such it seems to me that it would better to use these in, for instance, the "Highest ranking" section of Judd Trump's infobox, where brevity would indeed be useful. Nigej (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as people should be able to understand the shortened month format (does the abbreviated versions have a tooltip users can mouse over to see the long format? Not a big deal if thats not the case tho) and it would prevent the text getting super small. --CitroenLover (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any requirement to do so, but we need to only use them in very specific cases. Nigej (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of feel like we could just put it as a note instead when it's that ridiculous. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Prize money" in infobox (continued)

This is a follow-up to WT:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2021/January#"Prize money" in infobox, which was never resolved. The consensus there, it seems to me, was to delete it. Obviously the prize money total could still be mentioned in the article, I'm just proposing to delete it from the infobox. We had one user wanting to retain the status quo but they provided no solution to the issue of how to cite the numbers. Seems pointless to me to retain the parameter for the one or two players where we could perhaps find a number. Any more thoughts?

I'd agree with removing it from the infobox and that total winnings can be included in the prose if there is a reliable source. I've seen lists in Snooker Scene, e.g. of the top ten prize money winners of all time, but, like century breaks, I guess it depends what events are included included as to where a source gets its total from. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a general point. Stats in the text can be put into some sort of context, even to the extent of saying "so and so says he won this amount, but someone else says this." whereas stats in the infobox are really only suitable if they are unambiguous. Personally I see nothing wrong with saying that different sources give different numbers. Nigej (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The big issue is that people think it's suitable to add this up and update it after every event. I'm happy with saying that a player has won over £X million (if we have a citation), which is fine for the prose. Uncited, and ambiguous has no place in the infobox. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Based on these and the earlier consensus, I've started deleting the parameter from player articles. Nigej (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. May be a few left I've missed which I can clear up later, but they're not used now anyway. A few need reviewing since they had seemingly genuine references: Stephen Hendry, Steve Davis, Terry Griffiths, Cliff Thorburn. I haven't checked yet whether the information is already in the text. Nigej (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added something to the four articles noted, but probably should be checked. Nigej (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is that we've cited some of these to try and get them through a GAN, rather than being useful info. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing total century breaks (continued)

The new century break system is now up and going and hopefully working as intended. I've added a "doc" page for Template:Infobox snooker player/century breaks giving some information/instructions. This is currently rather vague in places since we've not decided some of the issues. I've added a paragraph on "updating" with an instruction: "Do not update totals during the day's play." but we need to decide whether it's ok to update it daily during tournaments or whether it should only be updated after the tournament. snookerinfo.webs.com/100centuries is updated daily: "This list is updated daily during tournaments after all games have been completed.". Personally I'd be quite happy for our data to be updated daily too. Another issue is whether we should have some sort of protection on the file, presumably WP:SEMI, in line with the protection on the template itself {{Infobox snooker player}} - which would seem logical to me. Nigej (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good! I do wonder if this might be better as a Lua module, similar in lines to some other Lua modules out there that handle data of this nature, as a Module file would be easier to update than a massive switch statement. But thats more of an optimisation we could look at later, since I don't expect this to be getting edited frequently [my viewpoint is that it should be updated at the end of play for that day]. --CitroenLover (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like magic, the file is now semi-protected. Thanks whoever triggered that, or perhaps it just happened. Nigej (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's automatic Nigej, as it's transcluded on enough pages. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing "High break" parameter with "Maximum breaks"

This is a follow-up to WT:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2021/January#"High break" in infobox. The general view there was that the "High break" parameter was generally uncitable and of relatively little interest, whereas a "Maximum breaks" parameter would be citable (since there is an official list) and much more interest is shown in this achievement. My proposal is to remove the "High break = ...", replacing it with "Maximum breaks = n" (or blank if the player has none) which would produce eg "Maximum breaks 2" (nothing if the player has none) in the infobox. I have toyed with the idea of having a central repository for the maximums data but I now feel that this would just create unneeded complication, since there's no disagreement about the numbers.

Currently, for those who've made a maximum, The "147" is followed by addition text. This is generally different for those who've made 1 and those who've made more than 1. Ryan Day is a typical example for those who've made 2 or more: "(2 times)". Sometimes "small" text is used for this, for no obvious reason. Luca Brecel, is a typical example for those who've just made one. A link is provided to the event where it happened, generally on a separate line and generally in "small" text. I have looked at the possibility of doing something similar but I don't think it really works. For one thing, its impractical for someone like Ronnie (with 15), and also the use of "small" text falls foul of MOS:SMALL (text in infoboxes is already smaller than normal text). So I'm of the view that we just put the number in, the user can click on Maximum breaks to go that article or look through the article to get more detail. Nigej (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good proposal. As you say, Maximum break has the details on how many official ones have been made, so that can be the central repository, rather than a template. --CitroenLover (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the small thing is certainly silly. We have to be a little cautious with saying "maximum break", as there are different types of maximum break, and a maximum in six-red snooker is quite common. I'm not saying there is a confusion, but just to comment here that these are not the same thing, before the inevitable edit war when O'Sullivan takes part in the World Six-ball Championship. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the use of a link to Maximum break and some suitable text in the template documentation should be enough. However we could always use a different phrase, like "147s", "147 breaks", "147 maximums", "Official maximums" or whatever, if it were to become an issue for us. I'm now thinking that "Official maximums" would be a clearer name for the parameter, might discourage someone putting in silly numbers for Willie Thorne for instance. Nigej (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I suppose "Official maximum breaks" would have to be the title, which is probably longwinded. So long as the documentation stated it was specifically for officially ratified maximum breaks of 147 (or 155.... Does a 148 count as a maximum? I suppose that's not really our issue) it's fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Lee a 148 does not count as a maximum break if you referenced Jamie Burnett he has not made a maximum as he made a high break of 148. This is not on the official maximum breaks list and it should be removed from his page. He only made a high break ok 77.75.244.40 (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He appears in the Maximum break list at number 57. So I'm a little confused at the moment. Nigej (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

also here https://wpbsa.com/about-us/records/147-breaks/ at number 57 Nigej (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

or here https://wst.tv/wpbsa/official-147s/ at number 57 Nigej (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact a brilliant example of why our information should be referenced to reliable sources. Anyone can go to a reliable source and check whether he did made an official maximum or not. The same is not true as to whether Ronnie has won £12,345,678 in prize money or not. Nigej (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Major wins" parameter in snooker player infobox

We have a rarely-used parameter in {{Infobox snooker player}}: "Major wins". The documentation says:

If a player has won all their tournaments before the 1973/1974 season (1976/1977 is when the first snooker world rankings were published), list them under |Major wins=, like in the John Pulman, Fred Davis and Walter Donaldson articles.

so it's meant for the old-timers who played before ranking events started. It seems to be only (validly) used for Fred Davis (snooker player) (12), Harry Stokes (snooker player) (3), Joe Davis (24), John Pulman (12), Sidney Smith (snooker player) (1), Walter Donaldson (snooker player) (2), although there may be others I've not found. Walter Lindrum also uses it to list some billiards achievements. Personally I find it rather ill-defined, and for Fred Davis (snooker player) and Walter Donaldson (snooker player) (for instance) I'd rather just have the "World Champion" bit in the infobox. Happy to keep if folk think it's useful. As ever the danger is that people use in inappropriately, like Ng On-yee whose wins were clearly after 1973. Nigej (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we need anything more than World Championship, ranking, and non-ranking. I suppose the only confusion is those old minor ranking tournaments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the parameter. Maybe at some future date we can come up with something more well defined. Nigej (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox snooker player season

We have a template {{Infobox snooker player season}} which was used by the old Ronnie O'Sullivan season by season articles. It's used by a couple of drafts (one failed, one not submitted). I'm assuming, based on previous discussions, that we don't want season by season articles for any players and so this template can go. Nigej (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is now deleted (or moved to userspace for some reason). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

defending_champion parameter in Infobox individual snooker tournament

We have a defending_champion parameter in {{Infobox individual snooker tournament}} which I'd like to get rid of. Generally the defending champion is put in when the tournament article is created and then when the tournament is over (or during it) it gets deleted (eg 2021 UK Championship). All seems a completely pointless exercise to me and fails one my Wikipedia rules that (generally) we shouldn't be adding content when we know that later it will get removed. Nigej (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually disagree on this to a point, we don't actually have any rules on things not being added if they are to be removed later. We have plenty of things that are specifically written despite knowing it would be outdated. We generally do include information about how the defending champion got on within the article as well, so it's sourced. I suppose the question is, why do we even remove this from the infobox? The argument has always been that they are no longer defending the championship, but that is not important, we are saying who went into the tournament having won the prior version.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me its in the same category as live scoring, putting stuff in when you know its going to be changed. Sometimes we have to do it (eg tense "will be" "is" then "was") but generally its undesirable IMO. Nigej (talk) 08:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the issues i have with the defending champion item in infoboxes, is when you have tournaments that are restricted. For example, the champ of champs and the tour champs. In both these cases, the defending champion may not be eligible to enter or they choose not to, thus meaning they cannot actually defend anything because they aren’t actually in the tournament to do so. The Masters is the sole exception because the previous year’s champion will always be invited, even if they aren’t in the top 16, although they could technically decline to defend their title. Im all in favour of removing the defending champion entry from the infobox. It generally gets referenced in the article lead anyway, where more context will be given. CitroenLover (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I care too much either way, so long as we don't start trying to remove the prose about it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree Lee, I would certainly oppose removing any prose/in-article text about the defending champion if it were proposed! Just think its not relevant in the infobox. --CitroenLover (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of bold/italic in "Final" table

We've had a "Final" table in our individual events articles for many many years. He're a typical example 2020 World Grand Prix (2020–21 season)#Final. Generally I feel that they're ok. My main complaint is the use bold and italic in the "Highest break", "Century breaks" and "50+ breaks" sections. For some years we've had system (it seems) of bolding the higher number and using italics if it's a tie. I'm not keen on this for two reasons. Firstly I find the use of italics makes it quite difficult to read. My slightly dodgy eyesight struggles a bit with italic 1. Secondly the use of bold seems undesirable to me. We (and other sports) widely use bold to indicate the winner. We do it here with the frame scores etc, but using bold for the final three parts of the table make no sense. There was no competition for who got the highest break in the final or most centuries in the final, so it seems to me that the use of bold (especially italic) is unjustified. Regarding ties, see eg 2020_Championship_League_(2019–20_season)#Main draw where winners get highlighted but there's no highlighting for a tied match. This seems to me to be a good use of bold. 1981 World Snooker Championship#Main draw is good example of how I'd like to see it, just plain text for this part. Also worth noting that we have some articles, like 1996 International Open#Final and 1995 British Open#Final where the use of bold/italic clearly has a different meaning (although I'm struggling to work out what that is, answers on a postcard please). Nigej (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of small characters in the High ranking parameter text

I am in the process of deleting about 300 uses of {{Smaller}}, {{Small}} and the "<small>...</small>" markup in text associated with the High ranking parameter, eg changing "High ranking = 91 (June–July 2014)" to "High ranking = 91 (June–July 2014)". The plain fact is that the use of small text in Infoboxes is not allowed (per MOS:SMALL). Note also that the use of these is also not allowed within the template itself, per WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 146#Observe MOS:FONTSIZE in infobox templates where is was agreed to "deprecate font size reductions by infobox templates to below 85% of the page default size, including the use of {{small}}, {{smaller}}, and <small>...</small>". Nigej (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that the small notation should be reserved for outside of mainspace (such as talk and userspace). This is a suitable change. Do we need to mention when they were at that rank in the infobox? It's never cited (and it could easily be cited). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea of including all the dates of highest ranking worked okish when there was only one ranking change per season. However, it can now lead to expansive text, especially for the number 1s. A half-way house would be to only list the first time they reached that ranking. Nigej (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I guess? It doesn't really change that it's not really cited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. On that basis we should get rid of it completely. I've always found it surprising that no one out there keeps historical lists of all the ranking updates (not even us, we only seem to keep those associated with "seeding revisions", eg Snooker world rankings 2020/2021) or even a list of each player's highest ranking. Maybe there is and I've missed it. You'd think WST would have it on their player articles, or snooker.org (http://www.snooker.org/res/index.asp?player=85). Nigej (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new parameter "Ranking finals"

It seems a little odd to me that pretty much every article for a player that's reached a ranking final has a section listing the ranking finals they've played, called for example in the Ronnie O'Sullivan article "Ranking finals: 58 (37 titles, 21 runners-up)", but the number of ranking finals they've reached does not appear in the infobox. So I'd like to add a "Ranking finals" parameter which would show this number (ie. 58 for Ronnie). There's a certain overlap with the "Best finish" parameter. See eg Jack Lisowski which shows his "Best ranking finish" as "Runner-up ..." but which could simply be "Ranking finals 6". Nigej (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be for ranking finals only? As we already include the number of ranking, minor-ranking (MR) and non-ranking (NR) titles in the infobox, I think if we include ranking finals we should also include MR and NR finals given the rationale above. Might start to look a bit crammed though. Andygray110 (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It true that we could add all sort of similar things, World Championship finals too. However, it seems to me that ranking finals is both well defined and of wide interest whereas MR final is of little interest and NR is not so well defined. Also ranking finals matches the "Best finish" parameter which we have for the best finish in a ranking event but we don't have anything for MR or NR. Currently we roughly mirror wst.tv, eg Luca Brecel says "Ranking titles: One" and Jack Lisowski says "Best ranking event performance: runner-up, 2018 Riga Masters, 2019 China Open, 2019 Scottish Open, 2020 World Grand Prix, 2021 German Masters, 2021 Gibraltar Open" but this seem illogical to me. Why go into great detail about Lisowski's 6 losing finals but not mention which event Brecel won. Nigej (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we do that, wouldn't the infobox start to get a bit cramped? May I suggest we retain "Best Ranking finish" and show "Winner","Runner Up","Semi finalist", etc as applicable, and then the number of times in brackets rather than the actual events (in the case of Jack Lisowski this would be "Runner-up (6)" rather than the current version). The details should be shown further down in the "Performance and rankings timeline" and/or the "Career Finals" sections. I would have no problem retaining similar summary information for Minor ranking events, but, given the apparent ambiguity of Non-ranking tournaments (i.e. what Tournaments to include and exclude) I would be quite happy to leave "Non Ranking" out of the info box. If we keep "Non ranking" summary info in, then why not add Amateur titles information as well? Steveflan (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keen on the "Best finish" parameter, especially since WST often mention it in their player bios. I agree that the full names of the tournaments need to go from this parameter. We need to remove the small/smaller stuff anyway and the Jack Lisowski article (for instance) would get out of hand. Currently we have all sorts of different styles for this parameter, including "Last 16 (nine times)", "Last 16 (x10)", "Last 32 (twice)", "Quarter-final (6 times)". Probably something like "Last 16 (x2)" would be clear enough. I'm also wondering whether we should have some cut-off at the lower levels. "Last 128 (x13)"? Presumably he lost every match he played. "Wildcard round (2010 Shanghai Masters)"? So he got an invitation to play in a wildcard match, which he lost. "Last 72"? Is that possible? Doesn't seem very encyclopedic stuff to me. I'd propose limiting it to the Last 32 and better, especially since the WST doesn't seem to mention these minor "achievements", at least not for the two or three I looked at.. Nigej (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the "Best finish" parameter as well and fully agree that it needs cleaning up, with some agreed guidance around what should and should not be included. Best ranking finish is an obvious one, and yes we should agree a cut-off (I would say the Last 32 as well), although how would we define finishes in the Pro Series ranking event in 2020-21 and the Championship League ranking event at the start of the 2021-22 season? I'm quite happy to go with the consensus on Minor Ranking events, but in regards to Non-ranking and Invitational tournaments, I would suggest we only add tournaments won. I'm also in agreement that "Last 16 (x2)" is clear enough for the infobox. Steveflan (talk) 10:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No I agree with Andy this is a horrendous idea just leave the infobox stating the wins in Ranking, Minor-Ranking and Non-ranking events as they are. Does anyone really want to see the number of ranking finals played in an infobox. It is fine the way it is. What is the point of having Lisowski ranking finals 6 ?. Will that explain how many he has won ?. Infobox should really just include wins not totals finals played, if people want all that info they should go through a players page 77.75.244.39 (talk) 10:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So are you proposing that we get rid of the "Best finish" parameter? Nigej (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying leave the infobox as Ranking wins: 4, Minor-Ranking : 4 and Non- ranking 4 etc. Here is what I would say I think a parameter should be added in the infobox for "Professional Wins" ie for Steve Davis has ranking wins 28 and non-ranking wins 56. People should not have to count up how many titles he has won. There should be a line above like in golf. "Professional Wins" (84). I think that could be a great idea and would look good the way it is now you need a calculator to add them up 77.75.244.39 (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with is that, although the number of Ranking and Minor-ranking wins is well defined, the same is not true for Non-ranking wins. Where's the reference that says that Steve Davis won 56 non-ranking events? Adding up two well-defined numbers and a number that's not referenced, produces another number that's not referenced, making the situation even worse. Nigej (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as discussed to death earlier, there is some ambiguity as to what events are "professional events", especially as we go back in history. I'm not sure we need to have a finals variable in the infobox, especially as some of the biggest events held were not ranking events (CoC, Pot Black, Masters, as well as the old world championships). This info can be put into the body (so long as it is cited). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree with that but whatever. 77.75.244.39 (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen quite a few items now being listed as "other wins". I feel that's even less well defined than non-ranking wins. Surely that could mean absolutely anything! I'd propose we simply list the ranking event wins and world titles, which is very well defined. Remember, infoboxes aren't even manditory, so we should really have all of the information in there be completely correct, and cited in the prose. There are plenty of places where ranking titles are retained. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is that this category (the parameter is called "Other wins" but the text produced is "Non-ranking") is simply a count of the number of wins in the "non ranking" table in the article. There's no actual source that says "x won y non-ranking events". I deleted (amongst other things) "major wins" from John Pulman but Fooksy has reincarnated it as "Non-ranking 13". This includes as wins. qualifying for the 1948 Sunday Empire News Tournament and winning the 1973 "World Plate Championship", both pretty doubtful as bona-fide significant wins. The 8 world championship wins are important, the 13 "non-ranking" is meaningless, and of no interest to any of our readers. Nigej (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Ranked vs Invitational" championship league snooker

Hi, as we know the invitational Championship League will be returning at end of year and run through to February. What I'm finding the most confusing is the titling of the pages in the last 2 years since the pandemic. It's actually pretty difficult to find article you're looking for, since its not automatically clear which one is referring to the invitation version or which the ranking. I'd like to propose that, rather than doing convoluted titles like 2020 Championship League (2019-20 season) and 2020 Championship League (2020-21 season), we instead replace the bracketed text with a descriptive title referring to whether the version was a ranking, non-ranking or invitational tournament. I don't expect the ranking version to continue indefinitely [as its really only had a ranking variant due to the pandemic], but it would be a lot easier to differentiate the tournaments this way than referring to the season they occurred in, imo. Thoughts welcome. --CitroenLover (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed awhile back (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2021/January#Championship League/European Masters article names). Disamb pages like 2020 Championship League could be made more detailed, adding which were ranking/non-ranking/whatever. What happens when they're both ranking events or both non-ranking? We have 1993 European Open (1992/1993) and 1993 European Open (1993/1994), both ranking events, for instance (although this example doesn't include "season" in its name). Of course, we can add redirects, currently we have eg June 2020 Championship League but more could be added like 2020 Championship League (ranking event) if someone might plausibly type that in. Nigej (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that is more preferable to change the page title to 2020 Championship League (ranking event), etc as I would not expect there to be 2 ranking events with the same name in the same season (hence the use of a season 'indicator' for the European Open pages previously mentioned). Would it be worth considering an automated redirect to the 'regular' non-ranking event and then have a disambiguation sentence (similar to Word-sense_disambiguation) so that users can see there was another similarly titled 'ranking' event? Steveflan (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, we wouldn't expect two ranking events with the same name in the same season but it seems to me pretty likely that we'll have more situations where were have two ranking events with the same name in the same YEAR, which will require some sort of disambiguation. If we think users are confused we could add {{confused}} hatnotes. All reminds of the 1971 World Snooker Championship which was actually played in 1970 but we use "1971" to avoid this issue. Nigej (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really our choice. As far as I've seen, this is how sources refer to these events. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We disambiguate events using the season when they are primarily part of the same lineage and just get shunted from the second half of the season to the first half. The Championship League appears to be more complicated than that: the ranking edition and the invitational edition are starting to look like divergent lineages. However, this could just be a quirk of the pandemic (a lack of events, lack of sponsors etc), and World Snooker is probably just hosting a second event to fill some time in the calendar and once things get back to normal we could be back to one League per season. What I would suggest is that we hold fire on this for now; I appreciate the merit of CitreonLover's point but I don't think we should introduce a brand new disambiguation formalism just for one event over two or three seasons if the event reverts to one per season. If the event does evolve into two lineages post-pandemic (i.e. one ranking event and one invitational per season) then that probably should be reflected in the titling in some way. Betty Logan (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fairly obvious it will not continue as two events in the same season as we go on. Jason Ferguson made comments as much to say the ranking version was added to the calendar for pandemic reasons as an early season event 92.251.243.61 (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All arguments provided are equally valid and we should indeed wait a little bit before deciding. That being said, in all of the article leads of the "confusing" articles, we should probably stipulate it much more clearly if a tournament was an invitational or ranking event imo, if we haven't already. :) --CitroenLover (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: and @Nigej: reopening this topic. The championship league snooker website at https://championshipleaguesnooker.co.uk seems to now specifically differentiate the two versions of this tournament. One being invitational, another being ranking. For this reason, i think we should now be differentiating the pages so that readers know which edition is ranking and which isn’t. Not sure what to do about the may 2020 version, since that isn’t mentioned on their site afaik. [the differentiation context is referring to article titles]. CitroenLover (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly make sense to have 2021 Championship League (ranking) and 2021 Championship League (invitational) as redirects, and other possible names too. Probably based on WP:CRITERIA these might be good names for the articles too. Nigej (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I have feelings either way. I feel it's been stable enough until now that an WP:RM might be suitable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no big deal for me either. Not sure there really is a common disambiguous name for these events. Looking at WP:CRITERIA it seems to me that the ranking/invitational idea fits better regarding "naturalness" and "conciseness" than 2019–20 season/2020–21 season and equal regarding "precision". Bit of a unique situation so I think "consistency" is not a big issue here. Nigej (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay cool. I think its worth being bold and just moving the articles over the last 2 years to disambiguating titles for ranking and invitational, leaving redirects for the old titles. This may also help with regards of “defending champion”: apparently dave gilbert is defending the invitational version of this tournament, despite winning a ranking-variant version, not sure how that works when the tournaments aren’t really the same! CitroenLover (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What it shows is that they're all Championship League events. It's just that we have two a year at the moment, and we're just trying to distinguish between those two, not turning Championship League into two separate events: ranking+invitational. I think we can limit changes to that aspect at the moment. Nigej (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I updated the ranking event edition from 2020-21 season and corrected a few links, but any idea how long it takes the bot to update all of the links? don't feel like updating the link in player pages lol, but don't want to move to one of the others just yet.

As an aside, would anyone have any issues if the "post-lockdown" edition in June 2020 (ie 2020 Championship League (2019-20 season)) was updated to be 2020 Championship League (non-ranking)? This would distinguish it from the invitational version that started in October and finished in March (and this one I think should probably be updated to 2020 Championship League (invitational) to fit with all other invitational versions) and avoid there being a random outlier using an older naming convention. --CitroenLover (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WST/WPBSA

Excuse my ignorance but I'm wondering whether we should be having "Organisation(s) WPBSA" in the infobox in 2021 English Open (snooker) for instance. Isn't it WST? According to this https://wpbsa.com/participation/wst/ "Administered by World Snooker Limited, WST has grown from hosting just six events to over 28 tournaments over the past decade" "The WPBSA is a 26% stakeholder in WST" "Matchroom Sport Ltd, a company owned by Barry Hearn owns 51% of World Snooker Ltd." so they're not at all the same thing. Nigej (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WPBSA hasn't been the organiser since around the turn of the century if I recall. The WPBSA incorporated the WSA (in the late 90s or early 00s to administer the commercial rights to the game and organise events) leaving the WPBSA solely as the governing body. That has always been largely ignored on Wikipedia though; you are correct in what you say but the clean-up job is technically 20 years of articles, not just the WST events, although that might be a good place to start. Betty Logan (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed its all a bit of a mess. Apparently the two recent ranking-event Championship Leagues have been organised by "Matchroom Sport" but the non-ranking event in between was organised by "WPBSA, World Snooker Tour", which all seems a bit unlikely to me. Nigej (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the specification for the "organisation" field? I couldn't see it at the template page. Promoter and/or governing body? These were, I think, usually distinct before WPBSA Promotions was formed in 1983, and there were tournaments promoted after this by other orgs too (e.g. Premier League Snooker). For recent events, WST seems like the best option. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, {{Infobox individual snooker tournament}} is silent on its meaning. Perhaps we just ought to get rid of it. Better nothing than incorrect/uncited/confusing. Nigej (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Organiser should always be written as World Snooker Tour for almost every tournament, unless there are known exceptions. For example, the exception is the Champion of Champions, and the Championship League, which are all Matchroom Sport tournaments and have never been organised or managed by WST. That being said, since its a static value, it may be better to just hardcode the value into the template and only put the parameter on pages where the text should be something different. CitroenLover (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems from https://wst.tv/wst-brand-relaunch-for-snooker-as-part-of-global-vision/ that the specific name "World Snooker Tour" only started at the beginning of 2020. To get the ball rolling I've changed the following 44 articles from 2020 onwards to say World Snooker Tour: 2020 English Open (snooker), 2020 European Masters (2019-20 season), 2020 European Masters (2020-21 season), 2020 German Masters, 2020 Gibraltar Open, 2020 Masters (snooker), 2020 Northern Ireland Open, 2020 Players Championship (snooker), 2020 Scottish Open (snooker), 2020 Snooker Shoot Out, 2020 Tour Championship, 2020 UK Championship, 2020 Welsh Open (snooker), 2020 World Grand Prix (2019-20 season), 2020 World Grand Prix (2020-21 season), 2020 World Snooker Championship, 2021 British Open, 2021 English Open (snooker), 2021 German Masters, 2021 Gibraltar Open, 2021 Masters (snooker), 2021 Northern Ireland Open, 2021 Players Championship (snooker), 2021 Scottish Open (snooker), 2021 Snooker Shoot Out, 2021 Tour Championship, 2021 UK Championship, 2021 WST Pro Series, 2021 Welsh Open (snooker), 2021 World Grand Prix, 2021 World Snooker Championship, 2022 European Masters, 2022 German Masters, 2022 Masters (snooker), 2022 Players Championship (snooker), 2022 Tour Championship, 2022 Turkish Masters, 2022 World Snooker Championship, Q School 2020 - Event 1, Q School 2020 - Event 2, Q School 2020 - Event 3, Q School 2021 - Event 1, Q School 2021 - Event 2, Q School 2021 - Event 3.

I've not changed 2019-20 Championship League, 2020 Championship League (2019-20 season), 2020 Championship League (ranking), 2021 Championship League (invitational), 2021 Championship League (2021-22 season), 2020 Champion of Champions, 2021 Champion of Champions, 2020 World Seniors Championship, 2021 World Seniors Championship, 2022 World Women's Snooker Championship. A couple of these are ranking events. Comments? Nigej (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Championship League is organised by Matchroom Sport, as per its main "article": it has never been a WST event, so for me, those should refer to Matchroom Sport as the organiser in all instances rather than WST. That being said, given that Matchroom Sport is the parent company that owns the World Snooker Tour commercial rights, it would not be "entirely" wrong if the ranking version of CLSnooker was marked as being organised by the WST. As for the Seniors and World Women's Championship, these should be set to the World Seniors Tour and the World Women's Tour respectively as organisers as they are not organised by WST. WST in this context refers to the "main tour", so any tournament that doesn't appear on the WST's tournament schedule/calendar should generally not be referred to as a WST event.

Side-note: it would be nice if we had an article specifically about WST the company, alongside World Snooker Tour referring to the main professional tour itself. --CitroenLover (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with all that. I was originally just concerned that using WPBSA was wrong. Clearly there's a close relationship between all these companies which makes things a little complicated. Also worth noting that WST is just a brand name, the company is still called World Snooker Ltd, formed in 2000, and there's a World Snooker Holding Ltd formed in 2010 which is the holding company created when Barry Hearn "took over" the tour, although WPBSA continues to be a minority shareholder of that holding company. Nigej (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See this https://wpbsa.com/events-list/ which has a column Matchroom/WPBSA/WST/etc which, it seems to me, we should follow. Nigej (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Best finish" parameter

As noted above the "Best finish" parameter in {{Infobox snooker player}} is in desperate need of a clean-up. The parameter is specifically for ranking events, which is a well-defined list. Also it is not used for any of the 68 players who've won a ranking event, they use "Ranking wins" parameter instead. A few issues come up:

1) As was noted above, we currently have a number of "best finishes" in which the player didn't win a single match. I'd suggest limiting it to those who've reached the last 32 of an event. This fits in neatly with the common old tournament style with 32 players in the main event, the top-16 ranked players + 16 qualifiers (and still used for the World Championship).

2) What does "best finish" mean. Generally it's well-defined but the round-robin events and different qualification systems somewhat complicate the issue. Up to 1981 there was a last-24 stage in the World Championship (and a last 32 if you include the final qualification round). The 2006 and 2007 Grand Prix (snooker) had a round-robin stage reducing the field from 48 to 16. And recently we've had the WST Pro Series which finished with a round-robin (128 to 32 to 8) and two Championship Leagues which had 3 stages reducing the field from 128 to 32 to 8 to 2. Probably others too.

3) Is it citable? The good news is that for current players WST generally mentions it. eg [6] "Best ranking event performance: Semi-finals" or [7] "Best ranking performance: Semi-finals, 2018 Scottish Open" [8] "Best ranking event performance: Quarter-finals", [9] "Best ranking event performance: Last 32" The bad news is that it doesn't generally say exactly how many times, although details are often given in the biography further down. For any ranking event finalist it shouldn't be a big issue to find a reference. For players without WST bios further down the list (last 16, last 32) it may be more of a problem.

4) Names to use: Currently we use: Runner-up (36 players), Semi-final (50), Quarter-final (roughly 58), Last 16 (69), Last 24 (4), Last 32 (89). Sam Craigie has 3rd (his finish in the 2021 WST Pro Series#Final group stage). So that's about 300 players all told, down to the last 32 level.

5) Extra detail. Currently we often have additional detail. Many list the event(s) eg Jack Lisowski, Nick Terry. Others like Cliff Wilson and Jason Prince simply say "(5 times)" or similar. A big issue with the list of events is that they generally use small/smaller which is specifically not allowed in infoboxes. A potential issue with just saying "x1" (or whatever) is the example of Gao Yang (snooker player). He already has "Last 32 (2022 German Masters)" in his infobox since he's qualified for that stage already. The danger with using "x1" is that someone next year will add the event again (not knowing which event the 1 refers to).

Nigej (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way you should not use x1 at all. If it has happened only once it should just say, Semi-finals, Runner-up etc. If it has happened on more than one occasion then you add the x as it identifies the same result has occurred on multiple occasions Kentbobo (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having a system where, if it's missing, then that means (x1) is not ideal IMO. How is the casual reader meant to know this secret code? It's true that we currently use a system where the absence of "maximum breaks" means none, the absence of "ranking" wins means 0 wins, etc, so I suppose it's not so different. It would also make sense if the (x2), (x3), etc were quite rare. However they occur 43% of the time (for those from Last 32 to Runner-up), so they're quite common. My own preference is to either always include it or always leave it out (after all, Lisowski's best finish is actually Runner-up). Nigej (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Bingtao controversy

Please can someone take a look at Yan Bingtao and back me up on this. A new user is specifically adding information about a sexual harassment accusation which has appeared on Chinese social media. I've removed the content citing WP:SUSPECT but the user has just put it back again. The sources are highly dubious and Yan has not responded. I wouldn't be surprised if it were some personal vendetta and it really doesn't belong here. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy that's a massive BLP and WP:CRIME failure. Keep an eye on it, drop some warnings, and let me know if it gets really bad and protection/blocks are warranted for this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just dropped them a warning. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's worth noting they are doing the exact same thing at zhwiki Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New properties in Wikidata

Anyone would like to propose new properties for players and tournaments at snookerscores.net?--218.250.158.118 (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say we are wikidata. I occasionally take a look around there, but what sort of things were you looking at? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean something like [10] and [11] for snookerscores.net/. New properties can be proposed here --218.250.158.118 (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

High break in infobox for players that have not made a maximum break

Hi I am just wondering if we could add a career high break parameter only for the players that have not made a maximum break ?. I will give three examples. 1. For retired players like Joe Swail he never made a maximum. By looking at his infobox it would be nice to know what his career high break was it just leaves something missing. 2. Current players that have not made a maximum I think it should be shown what their HB is as fans want to be able to see this info. Finally point 3. This has obviously happened only once as we know Jamie Burnett has made a maximum break and a high break of 148 I think this in particular, the HB should be highlighted in his infobox. Again I think the infobox tidy up looks well adding the maximum breaks, tidying the best ranking finish etc. I would just like to see this proposal implemented for those without a 147. Regards 31.200.158.200 (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental issue with this is: where is the information to come from? I'd assume that we'd use the "Highest tournament break" in the WST biographies, eg https://wst.tv/players/joe-swail/ https://wst.tv/players/jordan-brown/ They don't give any indication when this high break was achieved but it is at least citable. If we are limit it specifically to this information, I wouldn't be 100% against it. Before I removed it, the Joe Swail article said "142 1999 China Open (qualifying)" but WST doesn't mention that extra information so we should limit it to just "142", unless we have other reliable sources that mention this extra information. The final issue is whether it's really that interesting to our readers. Personally I doubt it. Are they interested that Joe Swail's best break is 142 rather than 141 or 143 or 146. I suspect not. Nigej (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the actual place it happened is really not citable. The 142 for Swail (acording to my non-citable OR), suggests it was actually in the last 32, so not in qualifying. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that some of the last 32 matches in the 1999 China Open (snooker) were played in the UK (presumably they'd be called qualifiers) and some in China. Clearly the matches involving the wildcard winners had to be played in China, not sure about the others. http://www.snooker.org/trn/9900/ci99_res.shtml calls the last 32 matches "qualifying", even those matches played in China, another example of this issue of whether "held over" matches are qualifiers or not. Our articles says "The defending champion was John Higgins, but he was eliminated in the fifth round of the qualifiers, losing 1–5 against Peter Lines." even though this match was played in China and in IMO was not a qualifier at all. Nigej (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that just four last 32 matches were played in China, the 3 wildcard winner matches and Williams/Harold, perhaps explaining the 140 Harold high break we have in the infobox. Just a one table setup, so only 2 or 3 matches played per day. Shows how much effort is still required to get articles up to any sort of decent standard. Anyway, keep up the good work. Nigej (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On this, we don't even know if this was the first, or only time he made this break. I'm all for including info that an actual source states, but we need to be specific as to what is ok. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is how to ensure editors do not add "high breaks" for players not on the WST site. There are some editors who seem to have a desperate need to fill in infobox parameters, and they're going to trawl the internet to find high breaks, and add the information from cuetracker or some other blacklisted site. Before I removed them all, there were hundreds of high breaks not mentioned on the WST site and the danger is there all going to filled in again. Nigej (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Held over matches (again)

Further to #Held over matches above, we're still getting attempts to change Mark Allen's Maximum break to a qualifying match, despite the fact that the official list https://wst.tv/wpbsa/official-147s/ makes no mention of it as such (no "qualifiers" in entry 170). Part of the reason for this is that we seem to have got into the habit of regarding held over matches as qualifiers, seemingly contrary to how WST thinks of them. As noted in the earlier discussion we've had a system of moving centuries in held over matches to the qualifying stage section (see eg 2021 Northern Ireland Open#Century breaks) contrary to the way WST organised them. We also include held over matches in a "Qualifying" section.

One solution to this would be to simply change a few headings (with some cosmetic editing), eg change ""Qualifying" to "Qualifying and held over matches", "Qualifying stage centuries" to "Centuries in qualifying and held over matches". A more radical alternative would be to extract the held over matches from the "Qualifying" section and put them in a "Held over matches" section. This could be down the bottom of the article (like Qualifying) or could be above the "Main draw", like the way we treat the old "wildcard" matches, eg 2012 German Masters#Wildcard round (perhaps my choice).

There is also a minor knock-on effect to the "Performance and rankings timeline" sections of player articles. see eg Allen's opponent in the held over match, Si Jiahui, whose entry for this event says "LQ" (lost in the qualifying draw), which is actually not correct. Presumably it should be "LH" (lost in a held over match) (or whatever). Nigej (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The other alternative is to not to mention whether the break took place in qualifying or not, and just say which event it took place in. If we wish to keep it, then we need to follow that list - which says that break took place in the event, and not qualification. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just add another voice to this discussion, the WST splits centuries into "Qualifying Venue" and "Main Venue" sections (although they don't title it that way). For example the 2021 UK Championship has just one list as all the matches were played at the same venue ^[1], whereas the current Scottish Open has two such lists ^[2]^[3] with the held-over matches showing in the 'Main Venue' list as Round 1 (held over). I don't think it helps matters that WST are titling their list as 'Qualifying Centuries' and 'Centuries', but is it worth considering breaking down the centuries list (if indeed that is the suggested way forward) to "Qualifying Venue" and "Main Venue" categories rather than just "Qualifying" and "Main Draw"? Steveflan (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One is called "BetVictor Scottish Open 2021 Qualifiers" with the centuries being in "Round 1", and the other is called "BetVictor Scottish Open 2021" with the held over matches called "Round 1 (held over)". However I think your suggestion is a good one (Venue would need to be lower case). Somehow we've got to get people used to the idea that there doesn't seem to be any concept of a "qualifying round" or a "qualifying stage" for the WST nowadays, just qualifying matches and main venue matches, and held over matches are in the latter category. Nigej (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem like the most sensible way to deal with this. Although, only for events post-2019 where this has been a thing. I don't think we should make those changes to events where there is a clear qualification and main stage, even when there were held over matches. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it goes back a bit before 2019 but its not a very longstanding issue. Firstly, wild-card matches were originally the thing. Later there were a few held over matches but generally we treat them in the way WST does. See eg the 2006 Malta Cup, an early example, where Tony Drago's matches were held over. He didn't even reach the last-32 stage, losing in the last "qualifying" round. However we include his century in the "Televised stage centuries" not the "Qualifying stage centuries". Similarly Liang Wenbo in the 2008 Shanghai Masters (his 105 was against Allen). Also Dominic Dale in the 2009 Welsh Open (snooker) (centuries against Wenbo). It only seems to be more recently that we've abandoned this Televised/Qualifying distinction. I don't think Televised is a good word nowadays (rather ill-defined) but we can still use the same idea: Main venue/Qualifying. Nigej (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

EPTC Plate Trophy

I was looking at the Luca Brecel article and see that we have a "Non-ranking" win for him "EPTC Plate Trophy – Event 2". This was added in December 2020 by you-know-who with the comment "After each EPTC Event that season a non ranking Plate Trophy was set up for the players knocked out in the first round to win some money and a trophy". The EPTC Event 2 referred to is this: Euro Players Tour Championship 2010/2011 – Event 2, a minor-ranking event. However he didn't win this, he lost at the last-128 stage. That season a "plate" competition was organised for the 6 EPC events which the last-128 losers could enter and this is what Brecel won. He won 1,500 euros, the runner-up 500. Its a struggle to find sources. Clearly the information here has come from cuetracker which includes them in its "Non-professional" list of events. The main event is in the "Professional" list. Our 6 articles for these 2010 EPTC events don't mention the winner of the plate except for Euro Players Tour Championship 2010/2011 – Event 4 which includes this source http://www.southwestsnookeracademy.com/tournaments/Archive/eptc4-2010/tournaments-plates-results.html for the plate event. This shows that only 5 of the 32 first round matches in the plate were actually played, at least one player scratched in the other 27, and only 4 of the 16 second round matches were actually played. Seems to me this is real "scraping the bottom of the barrel" stuff and I would propose removing these 6 plate events from the "Non-ranking finals" section of the player articles, as non bona-fide tournaments. Brecel's biography at WST https://wst.tv/players/luca-brecel/ fails to mention it and also says he won his "second professional title at the Matchroom.Live Championship League" which clearly excludes this plate event as a "professional title" (his first win was a ranking event). Nigej (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's hardly a championship win, and it's a hard sell that it was a non-ranking final in any sense of the word, as the event itself was ranking. Perhaps we need to get an actual list of what events are suitable for our ranking/non-ranking events final section. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should only have articles and tournament list entries for events that meet WP:GNG. I'd be surprised if EPTC Plate Trophy meets that threshold. If there are reliable sources, I'd include brief summaries of plate-type events for early round losers in the relevant main article, and tournament results if it's the plate for losers in a world championship. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no list for suitable non ranking events or whatever. Non ranking events are independent ly promoted and have been well looked after here the info is all correct. About these tournaments I am led to believe they took place because players that were knocked out of the main event had a separate event to make money and the money did not go towards rankings. It was a plate competition similar to the one in the world championship in 73,74 I imagine Kentbobo (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no list for suitable non ranking events or whatever, yes, that's why we are suggesting to create one. "Correct" information is not a valid reason for inclusion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it is correct it is correct. So do you mean Lee you are going to be deleting non ranking events from everyones pages ?. Kentbobo (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please indent your messages. If an item isn't suitable as a non-ranking final (so an event that isn't suitably notable to be denoted as such), then it shouldn't be included on players pages. It is up to us to come up with the criteria which is fair.

We don't just include information because it is "correct", see WP:NOT Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But that is an oxymoron Lee you should include information which is correct. That is the point of any sports encyclopedia. Not just what you think is suitable. Kentbobo (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. The point of a stats site is to cover everything and anything. An encyclopedia covers the important things in a player's career. Other minor things, with little or no coverage, we don't include. As to these EPTC Plate matches you don't indicate whether you want to keep them or not. Not sure what you mean by "deleting non ranking events from everyones pages" but personally I'm coming round to the idea of removing the non-ranking parameter from the infobox until we have a defined list of what counts and what doesn't. The actual list is well down the article and only the keenest reader will get that far, however including the total in the infobox (which people do look at) gives the number much more credibility that it deserves. See eg https://web.archive.org/web/20120531193810/http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/titles.html which includes Masters wins, which could perhaps replace it. Nigej (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please read like, literally any of our policy pages, such as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. You constantly, erroneously, believe we are a fan website. We are an encyclopaedia, similar to Britannica, where we summarise what reliable sources say about a subject. Sometimes, results and statistics are helpful to show this information, but we don't just retain all information about a subject. If something is non-notable, then it's irrelevant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC) (Amended links. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC))[reply]

That is a hideous idea Nigej. Removing non ranking wins for the infobox. People want event wins in an infobox regarding non ranking and minor ranking. Who said it was only the keenest people who are interested that would go down the page and read on ?. Have you conducted a survey ?. That is impossible to know.That is an opinion. I think people would and want to see a full set of career titles in the infobox. We seem to going down a bad road here especially with events regarding older players. You can't just go deleting events if there is little info on them if they actually exist. It does not mean they do not deserve a place.There is nothing wrong with the system. A minor or not notable event in your words can still be a Non-ranking event. I am not even talking about these plates but in general. Kentbobo (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point as usual. WST says in Brecel's biography (https://wst.tv/players/luca-brecel/) that he won his "second professional title at the Matchroom.Live Championship League" while we have it as a 3rd win (1 ranking, 2 non-ranking). Highlighting to people in the infobox that he's won 3 when sources say he's won 2 is not satisfactory, surely you can see that. Its clear that the EPTC Plate is not a "title". There might have been a trophy and a few euros, but who cares? I had a box full of trophies I'd won from all sorts of minor sporting events. All in the bin now, no one's interested. Nigej (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not missing any point at all. I see what you are saying. But there is a big difference between a professional player winning a title however and you winning something. You are not a pro and who cares about what you have won ?. I think I will remove these plates wins for now Kentbobo (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. That'll save me the bother. Nigej (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-ranking events consisting of a single match

In John Spencer's "Non-ranking finals" we have a win in the Benson & Hedges Ireland Tournament beating Alex Higgins 9-7. As the Irish Masters article makes clear this was actually a challenge match. The reference refers to the "winner take all" Benson & Hedges Challenge Match. Including this in his "Non-ranking finals" is clearly nonsense, in what sense was it a "final". The old pros were constantly playing one-on-one matches but we don't consider these as "wins". I would suggest that we have a clear rule that "Non-ranking finals" cannot include one-off matches, we need at least 4 players in a tournament surely, otherwise how can there be a "final". Nigej (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No I have to disagree there were no set rules back then no one ever said you had to have four players. The World finals in the early days were contested as a two player challenge match and they count. Plus this event you talk about is included and sourced in Chris Turner's Snooker Archive. Lots of events in the early days were of this nature 89.204.233.229 (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its completely incorrect to say "The World finals in the early days were contested as a two player challenge match". Occasionally only two players entered but they were never a pre-arranged match between two players, as this one was. I'd be happy to make an exception for events in which anyone could enter but only 2 or 3 did. Nigej (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just make up a rule that a tournament has 4 players to make a non ranking event. You have to respect the history of the game that is the way national championships, an Australian Open and even world finals were decided back then.All sourced by Chris Turner's Snooker Archive and other sites of course. 89.204.233.229 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that a pre-arranged "Challenge Match" between two players cannot in any sense be a bona-fide "final". Where does Chris Turner's Snooker Archive says was a "non-ranking final"? see https://web.archive.org/web/20120216155735/http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/irishmast.html "Irish Masters World Ranking Event since 1984" "The Irish Masters traces its origins to a snooker challenge match, promoted by Benson & Hedges in 1975 at the National Boxing Arena in Dublin between John Spencer and Alex Higgins." Can't find "non-ranking final" anywhere. Nigej (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the above discussion further highlights the fact that its us deciding what's a non-ranking final and what isn't, reinforcing my view that we should, as a minimum, remove the "non-ranking wins" from the infobox. Where's the source? Clearly nowhere. Nigej (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)To be clear the 1964–68 World Snooker Championships were actually challenge matches, in the sense that they were designed to be contested as a one-of match. However, it's a bit much to start saying that any challenge match that had a name is somehow a final is crazy. This is why a little bit further up, we need some inclusion criteria for the non-ranking events. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few oddities like 1967 World Open Snooker Championship which, IMO, just about scrape through the general notability guidelines and so which I'd incline towards including. I'd go for a slightly weaker stipulation than suggested above, along the lines ""Non-ranking finals" should not include tournaments where fewer than four players competed, unless there is a consensus to include that particular tournament." It's one of those areas where I feel there's never going to be an easy delineation. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'd support removing "non-ranking wins" from the infobox. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying these challenge matches weren't competitive, it just seems to me that it gives a false impression having them in a section called "Non-ranking finals", maybe we need a separate section on "Challenge Matches". And someone looking at John Spencer's infobox: "Tournament wins - Non-ranking 27" are being deceived IMO. Nigej (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm not keen on the use of "non-ranking" for the earlier matches. The concept of a ranking event didn't get going until late 1982. The earliest references I can find to a "ranking event"/"ranking tournament" are from October 1983 and the term "non-ranking" comes in even later. I know it was me that got rid of the "Major wins" in the infobox, but I don't find that a useful concept either. Nigej (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that any notable tournaments that aren't ranking events should be merged together into "Other wins", so, the newer idea of a "non-ranking event" (like the Masters, Shanghai Masters etc), older events that were major events but didn't have ranking points due to how they were dealt with (early WSC, UK Championships, the News of the World Tournament, etc), team tournaments (like the World Cup, World Triples, etc), and notable pro-am events (I suppose the Paul Hunter Classic, although I'd be happy not to include these either). Have all of these down under "other finals". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary nowrap use

We seem to have an issue with certain editors unnecessarily using the nowrap template at random locations. I've observed a couple of instances of this in places like the 2021 Masters (snooker), 2022 Masters (snooker) and the 2021 Scottish Open (snooker) so far. An easy (and obvious) fix I've been doing is simply increasing the team width to 220. From my side, setting it to this width is more than wide enough for every player on the tour, and removes the need to clutter up draw template invocations (which are cluttered enough as is) with useless templates. Would anyone have any issue if we attempt to standardise the team width to 220 going forward? I think this would massively improve the issue with nowrap template invocations cluttering snooker draws. --CitroenLover (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I think we recently discussed this. But yeah, more than just being redundant, the nowrap template actually causes issues within brackets. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I also recall the discussion, but I don't remember where lol. Sounds good then, going forward I'll update snooker articles to remove nowrap and fix team width's to 220 until such a time requires them to be expanded to 230. --CitroenLover (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, everyone see these tables differently depending on their device, font and character size, so there is no "correct" size that will guarantee that the name will fit onto one line. Play with your character size (ctrl+ and ctrl- on Windows) and you can see this. We have a number of editors who are determined to tune these brackets to their own screen/font/character size. Secondly, why are people so obsessed with this issue? If it wraps onto two lines for you and this is a big issue for you, one solution is to simply reduce your own character size. The problem with using nowrap is that is forces that particular text onto one line, when for some users it would be better for it to wrap - perhaps they've got a narrow screen or have bigger characters because they can't see very well. Nigej (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenated words (best example is [[Thepchaiya Un-Nooh|Thepchaiya {{nowrap|Un-Nooh}}]] is an exception. See WP:NOWRAP for details, but some terms should never wrap, but this isn't to be used on names that just happen to be long. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Nigej (that everyone sees the tables differently), but I don't think that we should just "selectively" and very randomly use nowrap on just a tiny number of players. If we are going to use nowrap in draws, then in my opinion, it should be used in a consistent manner. Using nowrap on someone like Thepchaiya's surname makes sense because its hyphenated, but then it would be better to make a template that does that on behalf of the user rather than adding it into actual pages, since currently [to my knowledge] he is the only player with hyphens.

From a multi-device standpoint, this is only my own opinion on this, but I don't think it really matters much. If this was important, we would design every page to be mobile first, but thats not consistent because Wikipedia does not expect editors to design pages so they look good on mobile but bad everywhere else. When I do look at the pages on my iPad Pro (12.9") from time to time, I don't mind that there is some line breaking from player names, it doesn't really make the page any harder to read.

In fact, the nowrap use often makes the first round "readable", but makes every subsequent round much more squashed and thus unreadable, not to mention unprofessionally formatted. For example, when Ronnie's name was nowrapped on the Scottish Open first round in the template, this caused the template to be extremely wide in the first round, that the "final scores" in later rounds is barely readable at all. Removing the nowrap eliminated the readability concerns of the final scores and made the template consistently have the same width when scrolling down, even if there was more row depth in cells. --CitroenLover (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree there. Making column wider so that the later one gets more squashed isn't really the solution. One specific issue for me is that I'm not very keen on the 64 player brackets. For me its not particularly a width issue, more a height one. See eg 2019 China Open (snooker)#Main draw. If your down the bottom of the bracket you're struggling to work out which round is which. For me the top half/bottom half division helps there. Nigej (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the "em" measurement is better than hard pixel sizes for column widths. It accommodates users who have larger font sizes, for whatever reason (usually poor eyesight). Line splits don't usually bother me but they can excessively increase scrolling on small displays. Betty Logan (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, works well with Reflist for instance but not sure its valid in these bracket templates. Nigej (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFC that could affect this project

There is a titling RFC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles that will affect many articles at this project. There was discussion of making the RfC handled bit by bit before all projects understood the ramifications with entertainment being singled out next in a deleted draft, and other projects after that. Whether you agree or don't agree please join in the discussion for this massive Wikipedia change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to articles like: 2015 IBSF World Snooker Championship – Men's, Asian Players Tour Championship 2012/2013 – Event 1, Asian Tour 2013/2014 – Event 1, Cue sports at the 2002 Asian Games – Snooker doubles, Euro Players Tour Championship 2010/2011 – Event 1, European Tour 2012/2013 – Event 1, Players Tour Championship 2010/2011 – Event 1, Pro Challenge Series – Event 1, Q-School 2015/16 - Event 1, Snooker at the World Games 2001 – men's singles and whether to have caps or not after the dash or perhaps remove the dash. Nigej (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some comments. At the risk of canvassing, I don't really understand why we use a dash for a lot of these events. Especially for "event 1". They should probably be merged IMO, but even if not, why a dash? Why a capital? I suspect the tennis aficciannos will have the most to say about it, as they've discussed it to death before. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused about the Pro Challenge Series – Event 1 series (played the season before the PTC started). The Pro Challenge Series gets a mention at Q Tour#History but the events were not really part of that series, being more like the later PTC events (https://web.archive.org/web/20120216160521/http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/prochall.html). In any case a single article for the whole season is clearly sufficient. The Category:Q School (snooker) events would likewise be better as a single article (per season), currently umpteen rounds of scores that no one is every going to look at. I think perhaps that the Players Tour Championship events are just about worth an article each (as minor-ranking events) but maybe even that's a little doubtful. Certainly, I think it's clear that one well-written article for a whole season is likely to be much more useful to readers that a large number of articles just full of scores. Nigej (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is about about the capitalization after the dash, whether the dash is there or not. The person who placed the RFC wants it all lower case after the dash or all lower case even if the dash is removed. I just wanted the project to know it will likely have an affect here and I didn't want it to be done one project after another. Whatever you want please join in the discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Challenge Series

I have created an article Pro Challenge Series, primarily a synthesis of the current four articles: Pro Challenge Series – Event 1,Pro Challenge Series – Event 2, Pro Challenge Series – Event 3 and Pro Challenge Series – Event 5 with most of the scores and other stats removed. My plan is to change these four articles to redirect to the main article, per previous discussions here on minor events. Nigej (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, you could probably include all of the results from the events. It wouldn't make the article too large in my opinion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another alternative is to keep the 4 sub-articles. Although the series is mentioned at Q Tour#History, its clear that it was a much more important series that most of the other events mentioned there, since it was (like the later PTC) specifically designed for main tour players (unlike the current Q Tour for instance which is specifically designed for non-tour players). Also centuries in it count towards player totals, although not Ronnie's since he, like many others, never bothered with it. Nigej (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't need four articles on this. One is fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the scores and centuries but not the "final" box. Nigej (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by DF147

What are we supposed to do about IP edits by User:DooksFoley147/User:Kentbobo now that he's blocked? I've reverted a few but I'm not sure if this is the correct approach. Nigej (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revert is fine. A range block isn't going to work, but if they get persistent on an individual IP, take to AIV, or let me know for a WP:DUCK block. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed his obsessions are such that its immediately obvious that it's him, in this case a need to stress that something is a variant event, in his terms, at least 10 times. BettyLogan at User talk:Kentbobo suggested that he might follow the WP:SO but that involves not editing for 6 months even as an IP, something that seems unlikely in the extreme. Nigej (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He'd need to actually apply for that, and generally you'd still need to show that you have changed from what got you banned in the first place. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edits as Special:Contributions/178.167.207.207. Nigej (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying round scores using RoundN

I've changed the 2 rounds of qualifying scores for the upcoming 2022 German Masters#Qualifying to use RoundN, in a style we used to use with customised templates, but have abandoned in recent times as formats have changed. Compare with the old version here: [12]. Data entry is slightly easier since the winner is highlighted automatically. The two-column aspect is done manually, it's two tables side by side. Just a suggestion, happy to go back to other. Nigej (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really see much point in this format. There are only two tournaments with more than one round of qualifying: German Masters and the World Championships, the latter with 4 rounds where such s table makes sense. Virtually every other tournament with qualifiers only have one round, which often is just the first round [last 128] played in a closed doors venue.

On the German Masters, it just looks weird, as if its been done wrongly and is incomplete. I think we’re better off keeping the previous format, although finding a way to autobold players who win, similar to the brackets, would be a good addition. Otherwise, i think we should revert to the standard qualification results formatting used elsewhere on the snooker pages. —CitroenLover (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Dave Hendon's podcast for info

Hi all. Most of us know who Dave Hendon is, being a highly regarded commentator for Matchroom, ITV and Eurosport tournaments. Just been listening to his latest podcast episode (Snooker Scene, you can find it on Sport Social's website) and while this isn't confirmed information, he's mentioned that its highly likely that neither the 2022 German Masters and 2022 European Masters are going to be played in Germany, primarily because of the pandemic changing things to the point that the German government are unlikely to allow venues to have crowds: he's mentioned previously that the Tempodrom breaks even on ticket sales, just from a full house event in normal times.

We already have a disclaimer above the calendar table on the 2021-22 snooker season page regarding "variability of tournament locations" because of the pandemic, but it makes me wonder if we should remove things from pages based on opinions or supposition from someone such as Hendon? I recently replaced the venue and location data for these 2 tournaments with a "tbc" since recent events suggest there's very little to no chance of these tournaments being played abroad. Thoughts welcome. --CitroenLover (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging in @Nigej: and @Lee Vilenski: (after editing the initial message). --CitroenLover (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what do official sources say? We should really stick to the official calendar, unless something specific comes out. As much as Dave is a reliable source, it does sound like they are chasing rumours. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee. There's currently not been any official statement yet, but from what I've gathered, Dave does have close contacts from WST officials (given he knew why the venue couldn't be used in Scotland for the Scottish Open). As we know, WST does seem to like "timing" announcements to be shared at specific times of tournaments nowadays, rather than just releasing them as soon as possible, so perhaps the official announcement will come out during the final of the WGP? --CitroenLover (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Lee. I'd go for following the official announcements. Our readers know that we're not in the speculation business and expect us to follow the official line. Nigej (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to stick to official stuff for the time being. Thanks both!! --CitroenLover (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matchroom Professional Championship and similar events

Looking at Matchroom Professional Championship, we have the main article and the 3 individual event articles with 6-8 players competing. I'm of the view that there's little prospect, or indeed interest, in turning these 3 articles into anything decent and would suggest a composite article at Matchroom Professional Championship. Events like the Scottish Masters (snooker) which went on for twenty years and had bigger fields in the later years, could be retained as they are but I would suggest that small-field invitation events that went on for less than 3 or so years could be treated as a single article. Nigej (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's more of a case of if the event is independently notable than the series. In the Matchroom events, unless anyone can find a series of news articles about the events (snooker scene/BNA) I don't think they meet GNG. I wouldn't be for removing/merging articles simply because of the amount of participants, but a lot of these events are probably pretty minor so don't need a full article. We aren't here to be a fountain of all of the results ever played. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that, even if the individual events pass GNG (which may be true given the money and the players involved), with only 5, 6 and 7 matches played in the three years, there's only a limited amount that needs to be said about each event. WP:N says that even if a topic passes GNG "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." and this seems to me to a good example of that. I'd be more doubtful that events like the 1984 Costa Del Sol Classic would pass GNG, although in that case there's no obvious way of merging with anything else, except perhaps the season article. Nigej (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support the suggestion. These events can always be split back out into individual articles if enough details are added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker nicknames

In my searching on the snooker pages, I found this page. My question is: why does it exist? Sure, there's a reference next to every nickname, but there are several referencing players who have not played for more than 2 decades, and some which seem dubious or irrelevant. For example, Ronnie is only ever referred to as "The Rocket", not the "Essex Exocet". Player nicknames are best placed on the infobox for ones we know are used for them, or were used in the past for several seasons if the MC decided to use something else. I am of the opinion we should delete this "list" page because it doesn't serve much use to the wider wiki. @Nigej: @Lee Vilenski: @Betty Logan: @BenjidogFourEyes: - paging here since idk how often the talkpage is checked, and I believe you four are the most active in the wikipedia pages from a talkpage perspective :) [also have a Merry Christmas and hopefully 2022 will be another good year for snooker!] --CitroenLover (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I care either way, but it's more of a question if it meets WP:LISTN. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What harm is it leaving them in ? Does anybody have a problem with them being included ?. I would think not 31.200.131.253 (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your first question is easy: somebody created it and it has never been tested against WP:LISTN at AfD. I did some work on this article a few years ago by adding the sources (it was mostly unsourced). Aside from that I think whether a player is still playing or not is besides the point; if we are going to have a list of snooker nicknames then it seems reasonable to include those of retired players too. Alex Higgins dropped off the tour in 1997 but he will always be The Hurricane. In Ronnie's case the "Essex Exocet" was his official nickname for many years while Alan Hughes was the MC. Sometimes nicknames change when the MC changes. Betty Logan (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I listened to a few youtube videos of alan hughes doing the mc’ing, but even then, he was still calling him the rocket, but perhaps he changed it randomly for a few tournaments that aren’t on youtube. As for listing nicknames, it feels like something thats better on the persons infobox, where someone is most likely to find the info. A list page seems a bit redundant since its just content duplication and spreads data thin needlessly across the wiki, its better to keep things easy to find through less pages. CitroenLover (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2020/December#Nicknames where this topic was discussed. I produced a list of nicknames in infoboxes at that time. This shows that most of these are actually unreferenced. As such the article is better than the infobox. Worth noting too that we are an encyclopedia and so nicknames used in the past and no longer used are just as important as the current ones used. The article is linked from the infobox, click on "nickname", so not really hidden away and gets quite a lot of hits, 57000 this year so far: https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=1&start=2021-01-01&end=2021-12-24&pages=List_of_snooker_player_nicknames. The main problem is that the article is not really maintained. One possibility is to try to integrate the article and infoboxes in some way, with both using the same content. Nigej (talk) 07:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, there are three options - either this is taken to AfD, as not being something that is talked about as a group in media, we decide that nicknames in general aren't really all that relevant so we delete the page and the items from the infobox - this would mean notable ones can be mentioned in the prose instead. Or, we simply leave it as is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As AndyGray said at the start of the earlier discussion "but is this section of the infobox really necessary? The same aim could be achieved by simply referencing the nickname in the article lead" "To me that infobox section just looks like a potential magnet for abuse" I agree and would be keen to remove it from the infobox. As ever, it just gives editors an easy way of adding unsourced material. If it's important add it to the article. Lets get rid of it. Nigej (talk) 10:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Seems like a cruft magnet, and does just show up names that aren't relevant. Shaun Murphy being "the Magician" is perfectly suitable to be mentioned in the prose (and the lede), similarly "Angles" Alan McManus, but not "Mr. 100 Haircut" Judd Trump. I'd say at the very least the infobox entry should be culled. The list article, I don't really have any thoughts on, would suggest AfD. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I have no problems with keeping this page, but I do think that some parts of it need to be updated, for example Liang Wenbo has three nicknames on the page, none of which are his actual nickname as used by MCs (The Firecracker). Also, some of the older nicknames are ones that have never really been used, or aren't famous, like "Danny the Boy" or "Judd Triumph" for Judd Trump, and "Wenbo Selecta" for Liang Wenbo. These are the types of nicknames that I think don't really need to be listed, but the older nicknames that are still famous, like "The Essex Exocet" or "The Hurricane" are definitely worth keeping, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, as Nigej previously mentioned. BenjidogFourEyes (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the variety of opinions, I do think this might be a page worth putting through the AfD process to see what happens. I do recognise we are an encyclopedia, but just saying [as an example] "Ronnie was nicknamed 'The Essex Exocet', here's a source for that claim" seems a bit..... low-effort. It would be worth backing up such a citation by looking for potential archive footage (if even possible) to prove it was used by an MC, and not just a made-up nickname of the given citation.

Overall, I would say we should reliably keep nicknames in infoboxes. However, I do think we should limit it to no more than 2 nicknames known to be used for a player: ideally, the maximum should be one, but there are likely broadcasters who've used alternative ones. Some of the Hendry nicknames seem like random turns of phrase by pundits or commentators and not necessarily nicknames used by an MC, for example. That being said, if the nicknames were moved to being part of the article text, I wouldn't have an issue with that either. --CitroenLover (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, a nickname isn't defined by it being used by used by an MC. I don't see what we gain from having a parameter in the infobox, rather than it being mentioned in the prose if notable.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Lee. Does the MC really say Rod the Plod? I rather liked "Lightning Rod". Nigej (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CitroenLover. Keep nickname(s) in infobox, max. two, but need to be reliably sourced, pref. WST profile source. The list page just looks like Fancruft to me and I'd vote to remove it. It might be a good idea to go for an AfD to get a wider view? Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say where the consensus is on this specific topic. I looked at the page on how something is put through the AfD process, but its highly confusing so if another editor with an understanding of the process wants to list the aforementioned article through it, to see the opinion, that would help.

I have no opinion on how nicknames are shown on article pages. Infobox or prose, it doesn't matter too much I guess. --CitroenLover (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to sponsor in lead

Hi all. A few days ago, I proceeded to update some articles to use a format for the article lead which I found was against the Manual of Style (thanks to @Lee Vilenski: for notifying me about that!). It brought up a curious point about how the sponsor should be referred to in the article lead for all snooker articles.

Currently, a lot of articles have done something along the lines of this:

The XXXX tournamentname (referred to as the XXXX sponsor tournamentname for sponsorship purposes) was a....

This is all fine and well, but very wordy and unnecessarily draws attention to it being for sponsorship reasons: most readers can fully understand that its for sponsorship purposes and don't need that spelled out in a page imo. We have some GA's which use a much more abbreviated format, like this:

The XXXX tournamentname (officially the XXXX sponsor tournamentname) was a ....

I highly support using this latter format thats been used in some GA's (eg 2005 Masters (snooker)) and propose that we update all leads to this format. In a way, this would also make things similar in how Formula 1 grand prix articles are leaded in, as they use virtually the same style as the abbreviated format above (except they say "officially known as") and it works quite well on all their articles without issues. This would also bring a resolution to a previous debate on this topic (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2020/August for more information) that supported keeping a reference to the sponsor in the lead, but in a way which is not overly promoting the sponsor.

Whats everyones thoughts? Will add pings here so wide range of input is found from our active editors: @Nigej: @Betty Logan: @BenjidogFourEyes: @Rodney Baggins: --CitroenLover (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone back on this. I prefer "option B" (Officially...), so long as we don't link the event or sponsor (per WP:BOLDAVOID. I don't think we should start the article with the official name, as that's not the name of the article, but we should totally mention it! I think the first option was my solution to the BOLDAVOID (such as 2005 Betfred Masters) issues we had, but can now be shortened. Both (I believe) have been through FAC, so it's more preference at this stage. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/Centuries/CenturyBreaks/14487/cazoo-uk-championship-2021

[2] ttps://livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/Centuries/CenturyBreaks/14482/betvictor-scottish-open-2021-qualifiers

[3] ttps://livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/Centuries/CenturyBreaks/14481/betvictor-scottish-open-2021

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 467: / Line 467: @@
 Seems from https://wst.tv/wst-brand-relaunch-for-snooker-as-part-of-global-vision/ that the specific name "[[World Snooker Tour]]" only started at the beginning of 2020. To get the ball rolling I've changed the following 44 articles from 2020 onwards to say World Snooker Tour: [[2020 English Open (snooker)]], [[2020 European Masters (2019-20 season)]], [[2020 European Masters (2020-21 season)]], [[2020 German Masters]], [[2020 Gibraltar Open]], [[2020 Masters (snooker)]], [[2020 Northern Ireland Open]], [[2020 Players Championship (snooker)]], [[2020 Scottish Open (snooker)]], [[2020 Snooker Shoot Out]], [[2020 Tour Championship]], [[2020 UK Championship]], [[2020 Welsh Open (snooker)]], [[2020 World Grand Prix (2019-20 season)]], [[2020 World Grand Prix (2020-21 season)]], [[2020 World Snooker Championship]], [[2021 British Open]], [[2021 English Open (snooker)]], [[2021 German Masters]], [[2021 Gibraltar Open]], [[2021 Masters (snooker)]], [[2021 Northern Ireland Open]], [[2021 Players Championship (snooker)]], [[2021 Scottish Open (snooker)]], [[2021 Snooker Shoot Out]], [[2021 Tour Championship]], [[2021 UK Championship]], [[2021 WST Pro Series]], [[2021 Welsh Open (snooker)]], [[2021 World Grand Prix]], [[2021 World Snooker Championship]], [[2022 European Masters]], [[2022 German Masters]], [[2022 Masters (snooker)]], [[2022 Players Championship (snooker)]], [[2022 Tour Championship]], [[2022 Turkish Masters]], [[2022 World Snooker Championship]], [[Q School 2020 - Event 1]], [[Q School 2020 - Event 2]], [[Q School 2020 - Event 3]], [[Q School 2021 - Event 1]], [[Q School 2021 - Event 2]], [[Q School 2021 - Event 3]].
-I've not changed [[2019-20 Championship League]], [[2020 Championship League (2019-20 season)]], [[2020 Championship League (ranking)]], [[2021 Championship League (2020-21 season)]], [[2021 Championship League (2021-22 season)]], [[2020 Champion of Champions]], [[2021 Champion of Champions]], [[2020 World Seniors Championship]], [[2021 World Seniors Championship]], [[2022 World Women's Snooker Championship]]. A couple of these are ranking events. Comments? [[User:Nigej|Nigej]] ([[User talk:Nigej|talk]]) 18:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
+I've not changed [[2019-20 Championship League]], [[2020 Championship League (2019-20 season)]], [[2020 Championship League (ranking)]], [[2021 Championship League (invitational)]], [[2021 Championship League (2021-22 season)]], [[2020 Champion of Champions]], [[2021 Champion of Champions]], [[2020 World Seniors Championship]], [[2021 World Seniors Championship]], [[2022 World Women's Snooker Championship]]. A couple of these are ranking events. Comments? [[User:Nigej|Nigej]] ([[User talk:Nigej|talk]]) 18:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 :Championship League is organised by [[Matchroom Sport]], as per its main "article": it has never been a WST event, so for me, those should refer to Matchroom Sport as the organiser in all instances rather than WST. That being said, given that Matchroom Sport is the parent company that owns the World Snooker Tour commercial rights, it would not be "entirely" wrong if the ranking version of CLSnooker was marked as being organised by the WST. As for the Seniors and World Women's Championship, these should be set to the World Seniors Tour and the World Women's Tour respectively as organisers as they are not organised by WST. WST in this context refers to the "main tour", so any tournament that doesn't appear on the WST's tournament schedule/calendar should generally not be referred to as a WST event.
 :Side-note: it would be nice if we had an article specifically about WST the company, alongside [[World Snooker Tour]] referring to the main professional tour itself. --[[User:CitroenLover|CitroenLover]] ([[User talk:CitroenLover|talk]]) 21:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

v t e 2018–19 snooker season
« 2017–18 2019–20 »
Ranking events	Riga Masters World Open Paul Hunter Classic China Championship European Masters English Open International Championship Northern Ireland Open UK Championship Scottish Open German Masters World Grand Prix Welsh Open Snooker Shoot Out Indian Open Players Championship Gibraltar Open Tour Championship China Open World Snooker Championship
Non-ranking events	Haining Open Shanghai Masters Champion of Champions Masters Championship League Six-Red World Championship Six-red Macau Masters
Team events	Macau Masters
Pro–am events	Vienna Snooker Open Pink Ribbon
Amateur events	Q School Challenge Tour
World Seniors Tour	UK Seniors Championship Seniors Irish Masters Seniors 6-Red World Championship The Seniors Masters
2018/19 world rankings ranking points 2018 in cue sports 2019 in cue sports