Talk:Maximum break

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Snooker (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 

What is an official 147?[edit]

Stale: Unfortunately no source contains this definition up to date. Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview 16:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I overlooked it, but the article does not mention the definition of an official 147. Bjorn Haneveer has now three 147s' none of which are mentioned in the list. The list of http://www.globalsnookercentre.co.uk/files/History/history_147.htm mentions Haneveer only in the footnotes, but not in the actual list. What am I missing? Voorlandt (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Good question; the article should cover this. My guess is it means "in tournament competition, not practice, informal play or exhibition games. But whatever is added needs as reliable source. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I found one reliable source containing this information, but it looks outdated after David Grays second maximum break. (It says official is in attendance of a referee, but in the amateur round of PTC there are no referees.) Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview 16:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

David Gray's counts as its during a professional tournament its all professional tournaments using normal snooker rules (no shoot out) using full sized tables (exc general cup) PIOS is also included as used to be the challenge tour thats the definition (QueenAlexandria) 11:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

David Gray's only counts because World Snooker said it does. However no reliable source contains, what criteria needs to be fulfilled for an official maximum break. Also PIOS maximums doesn't count. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 22:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Mike Dunn[edit]

Resolved

Same question for : 2012_German_Masters#Qualifying_stages_centuries : Mike Dunn got a 147 in the qualifying stage : he should be listed, shouldn't he? 89.217.132.78 (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike Dunn is maximum number 79 on the list. It's a bit further back because the qualifiers were before xmas. Betty Logan (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Maximums/maxima[edit]

Resolved: No comments in over six months. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I note there is a dispute over the plural or maximum. I would like to remind the editors that British English is used in this article.

According to the the Oxford English Dictionary both maxima and maximums are acceptable plural forms of maximum, with "maxima" being more widely used:

Inflections: Plural maxima, (rare) maximums.

However, in the context of sport, maximums tends to be the preferred form:

6. Sport. In darts, snooker, etc.: the highest score attainable; an instance of achieving this.

1986 Darts World Sept. 58/1 There are dartboard designs painted on the walls..and on the wooden beams the number of maximums scored by the visiting stars are recorded.

1987 Speedway '87 Mar. 3/1 He became the first rider to complete maximums in every away British League match last year and finished with a record 35 maximums in all competitions.

1999 Daily Tel. (Electronic ed.) 22 Apr., ‘I went for it when I had made nine, the reds opened perfectly,’ said O'Sullivan, whose maximum was the ninth in front of television cameras.

In addition to the OED, World Snooker (the professional governing body) also uses maximums as the plural form: [1].

In view of this, we should abide by WP:RETAIN, which stipulates that when different spelling variations are available we should retain the version that is first used by the article, which in this case is maximums. Betty Logan (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Support retaining maximums, as every English language source uses it in the context of snooker. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe this is not addressed in the article.[edit]

Resolved: No comments in over a year. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Or in the talk pages, for that matter: Who should take the prize for maximum break in an event where player A scores a conventional 147, and player B scores a 149 (say) break by potting yellow after his initial free ball, and then 14 blacks plus 1 pink (and clearing)? And who should win the prize for highest break?

What if both do a conventional 147 clearance, except one of them also scored additional points due to an initial free ball? Should they split the maximum break prize? And/or the highest break prize?

And finally: What if both achieve the exact same break (say, 150) taking advantage of an initial free ball, except that player A potted yellow after his free ball followed by the standard 15 blacks, but player B potted black after the free ball and yellow later on after a red (instead of black)? How should both prizes be assigned in this case?

Naturally, it should be assumed in every case that no other player in the event is a contender for either prize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.102.172 (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment If you have any reliable sources, which discuss this, than please add them to this section. Without (at least one), it would be original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not covered on the WSA site, but programmes used to clairfy that the maximum break was explicitly for "a 15-red 147 or a 16-red 155" (as covered by the article). I imagine it is still the same but there is nohing for us to cite. I don't think a player would get the prize for a 148 (Jamie Burnett didn't). There are other examples that could cause controversy: if a player gets a free ball at the start of the match, maybe pots it and then his opponent goes on to make a 15-red maximum, would that count as a maximum despite 155 points being available at one stage? Or if a player pots a red, and then his opponent gets a free ball and scores a 15-red maximum, would that count since only 147 points has been on at any point in the game? In short we don't cover it because the WSA don't address it. Betty Logan (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Link to Jamie Cope reverted twice, seemingly inconveniencing readers for no good reason[edit]

I linked Jamie Cope to his biographical article. This got quickly reverted by one user saying it was already linked earlier in the section. I restored it asking 'why inconvenience readers by forcing them to look for a possible link elsewhere than where they are entitld to expect it to be?'. This got almost instantly reverted by a second user saying 'because it's already linked in the previous sentence'. This still inconveniences readers by forcing them to look for a possible link elsewhere than where they are entitled to expect it to be, and no justification has been offered for such inconveniencing, which thus seemingly disimproves Wikipedia for no good reason that I am aware of. As I cannot restore it again without edit warring, I am raising the matter here first, to see if it can be resolved by discussion without having to decide whether to seek arbitration. Please explain why you think the article is improved by removing the link, thus, at least in my opinion, seemingly inconveniencing readers without offering any good reason, at least up to now. I will shortly be contacting the afore-mentioned two users to ensure they are aware of this item. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I might add that the tables in this article contain such multiple links, with Srephen Hendry being linked 6 times in a row, and quite rightly so, because the link costs nothing, while tables without such links are a pointless source of inconvenience where they are found in other articles. Jamie Cope is arguably already seriously under-reported here, as, at least in my view, he should be more prominently singled out as the only reported maximum 155. But even if that were not the case there would still be no good reason that I can see why a reader should be forced to go looking elsewhere for a possible link. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Tlhslobus (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Because it's overlinking. Tables are excepted from that. Also I don't think our readers are that stupid, that they don't see the link just above 2 lines. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there's any such thing as overlinking, in the sense that I don't see how extra links do any harm, and even if there were cases when they might, I don't see that this particular link does any harm. But there is such a thing as underlinking, which does harm through inconvenience and irritation for readers. And I think this is liable to be such a case, and I see no valid reason to take such a risk. I don't think failure to spot a link quite a distance away makes a reader stupid, but even if it did, there's no reason why Wikipedia should be making life any more inconvenient for people who have the misfortune of being stupid than it already is. Incidentally, it's actually 3 lines away, not 2, but even 1 line away is potentially missable by some readers, or at least potentially wastes their time looking for it, always assuming they think of looking before wasting time typing (or mistyping, as will often happen) 'Jamie Cope' into the search box; or sometimes they may simply give up. I see no particular reason why tables should be an exception (and in fact some tables are underlinked, as I've pointed out already). Perhaps you can show me somewhere where Wikipedia mentions overlinking and guidelines on avoiding it, preferably including instances where a person's name should not be linked to its biographical article when it's the only occurence of that name in a sentence (and indeed a bullet-point). I'm not asking for cases where it is said to be permissable to omit the link, but cases where such an omission is said to be recommended and/or compulsory. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Now the two breaks are in the same bullet-point. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
(Incidentally my last paragraph should have mentioned that we also need to consider the needs of those with various kinds of poor eyesight, but I digress). As for your combining of the bullet-points, while it may make a second link less important, in my opinion it has now further disimproved the article (again for no good reason that I can see), by making the maximum 155 break even easier to miss, as it's now tucked away at the back of a bullet point that appears to be about a 151 break. As mentioned earlier I think this 155 break, the only reported case of a maximum 155, was arguably already getting less prominence than it deserved, and now this has been made significantly worse. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I have now fixed reference, grammar, punctuation, and wording problems in your single-bullet-point amendment, but, as already mentioned, I think the single-bullet-point amendment disimproves the article. So I still want to bring back the version I had (2 bullet points each linking to his bio, along with the wording changes that I've added to properly reflect the citation). This would possibly require either your agreement or arbitration if I wish to avoid the impression of edit-warring. Meanwhile I would appreciate an answer to my above argument about the single-bullet-point being a disimprovement in the hope of avoiding having to think about going to arbitration. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it isn't a "disimprovement" to the article. Also if it were to be split back to two bullets, than Cope's name should still not be linked, as it's already linked 2-3 rows above (depending the resolution of your monitor). Armbrust The Homunculus 10:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, as I've now discovered and read WP:OVERLINK, and it seems you are right, as it states:

Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.

I should add that I still think this is quite likely to be inconsiderate, inconvenient, and irritating to many readers, especially those with poor eyesight, etc, (and, for all I know, may well some day get Wikipedia sued for institutional discrimination against such people, perhaps rightly so), but this is not the place for such a discussion, and in any case I may well be completely wrong. Meanwhile I'm making the change below, which satisfies WP:OVERLINK, but which I thought up as a possible compromise even before finding WP:OVERLINK. If you don't like it, please feel free to revert it, or modify it as you see fit.

I saw the format below as a possible compromise, because it has only one link to his bio, but in a harder-to-miss position, and relates the two breaks as if in a single bullet point, while giving greatly increased visibility to his 'maximum 155' :

  • Jamie Cope's 151 and 'maximum 155' breaks:
    • In April 2003 Jamie Cope made a 151 break at The Reardon Snooker Club during a practice game with David Fomm-Ward. After a foul by his opponent, Cope was snookered behind the brown ball. He took the brown as the free ball and then potted the blue, 13 reds with blacks and two with pinks, then the six colours.[1]
    • It was also reported that Cope made snooker's first 'maximum 155' break in a witnessed practice frame in the summer of 2005.[2]



Once again, my apologies.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

televised?[edit]

Can there be a video of an untelevised break? Nergaal (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course it can. A streamed match isn't necessarily televised. Also a member of the audience at the venue could also make a video. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Confusion over the definitions[edit]

Some editors seem to be confused over what counts as an official maximum or not, so I will attempt to clear up that confusion here.

An official/ratified/recognized maximum is basically the same thing: a maximum that was made on a templated table under the standard rules of snooker, officiated by a WSA credited referee. A ratified maximum can also be made in an exhibition match (as was Joe Davis' 1955 maximum) and amateur tournaments.

A maximum made in "professional competition" is any maximum that occurs in a WSA sanctioned tournament for its professional members, or any invitational event that is regarded as a professional event. There is no requirement for the maximum to be ratified. The most famous example of this is John Spencer's 1979 maximum which was officiated in a pro tournament, but not played on templated tables. A recent example was Ronnie O'Sullivan's maximum break at the 2007 Irish Masters which was played on non-templated tables.

The "official" list that is often referred to (and which is included in this article) pertains to ratified maximums in WSA sanctioned professional competition. To this end, O'Sullivan has made 13 maximums in professional competition but only 12 have been ratified, so only twelve are listed here. Betty Logan (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Snooker.org was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Everton, Clive (12 October 2005). "Murphy shows the form and confidence of a champion". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 21 January 2007.