Talk:2007 World Snooker Championship

Repetition

I've shortened the opening paragraph, as most of the information there is already contained in the qualification section.Pawnkingthree 10:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just saw the text being taken out and I wasn't sure why. As a separate point, I plan to dab this article into the top of the snooker and WC pages tomorrow. It is a good page for info on this WC and we are likely to have an increased amount of visitors looking for info on this championships (and things like the drawsheet are nice to study and tend only to get about 30 seconds of airing on the BBC each day). SFC9394 17:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Structure of this article

Would it be better to bump the drawsheet up to near the top of the article as people will have to scroll through all the qualifying info each time they want to check out a result... Seedybob2 10:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Linebreaks in some browsers inside results tree

I noticed that someone just removed a pair of parenthesis/brackets in the Drawsheet/Results tree to fix some sizing issue. Since I noticed absolutely no difference in the size of anything between the two cases, it must be a browser issue. I use IE 7 at the moment, and when doing so, currently the height of all the following boxes are enlarged due to the linebreak inside them:

• Anthony Hamilton 16, round 1
• Anthony Hamilton (16), round 2
• Stephen Maguire (9), round 1 (not round 2)
• Ronnie O'Sullivan (4), round 1
• Ronnie O'Sullivan (4), round 2 (however, linebreak is outside of the text)
• Matthew Stevens 14), round 1 (why use half a pair of brackets?)
• Matthew Stevens (14), round 2 (however, linebreak is outside of the text)

Feel free to remove brackets if you like, but it makes no sense to me. --Bamsefar75 19:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Decisions I was making were based on FF rendering. Opera seems to have no problem with the sheet either - but having just checked it in IE it is rendered much larger and hence some of the text is wrapped. I will have a look at the template source and see what can be sharpened up. It looks very untidy with wrapping, so (at standard font size @1024x768 in the three main browsers - I can't check with a mac) I would like to ensure that we don't have any unless there is absolutely no way around it. SFC9394 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes made. NickC made a few alterations and it seemed to improve it a bit but there was still some wrapping in IE, I have increased the size further and now everything is in one line. Hopefully we don't have any very long named last 32'ers in the WC in future years to break the template again! SFC9394 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

URL me the diffs you want compared, and I'll test them in Firefox/Mozilla and Safari on Mac and report back. Well, not diffs per se, but the before/after versions available from the diffs that are of importance here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Kinda can't really do before and after's as I (and Nick) have changed the template (presuming that past versions of the page will still ref. to the current template rather than the old one). Does the current version of the page render fine on the mac? It is now fixed from the PC end (@ 1024x768 which is a fair bar to set) and so hopefully it should be fine on the mac as well. SFC9394 21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Using the very latest release (non-beta/alpha/dev) versions of browsers, under MacOSX 10.4.9, at 1024x768, and normal near-full-screen window size:

Pyramid chart is perfect in Safari/OmniWeb (same WebKit rendering engine), Opera, and Firefox/SeaMonkey/Camino (same Mozilla rendering engine)

The 4-column chart has 1 or two wrapped items in Safari, and quite a few in all of the rest of them (which have a noticeably larger default font size; I doubt all that many users of it continue with a font size that large), but even so it isn't terribly hard to figure out. It could be made even more intuitive if the cells in the 4-column table were style="text-align:right;" - since it's the last name of the 2nd party in the cells that wraps, having them wrap to underneath that person's given name would be a bit clearer. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - The pyramid one rendering was the important bit. I might do a cleanup of the 4-column at the weekend. At the least I will make sure that it looks a bit clearer as it is, and I might mull if there is any better way of representing it (though it is an annoying one because it is knock-out yet it isn't as new folks come in each round). SFC9394 23:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixing section

Resolved

 – Content appropriately relocated.

I would be in favour of either dropping altogether or incorporating this section into another section. In the grand scheme of things it is just Ronnie being Ronnie - I don't think for a moment that he seriously believes that - comments echoed by Jimmy White on Saturday on TV, "Ronnie doesn't really believe that". I would say it very unlikely at the best of times, but a draw made in public by two TV presenters? I don't think we should be giving undue weight to it - there is certainly no factual basis for believing it to be the case. I will give it a day or so before cutting it - but it just reads a bit too "tabloid" at the moment for an encyclopaedia. SFC9394 21:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What section? Is this post on the right talk page? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It has gone now, I just incorporated it into the Notable moments chapter. The way it was exists in the history prior to today - it just seemed a bit out of place and sensationalist. SFC9394 23:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Odds for winning championship From William Hill. Claiming "Ding Junhui, considered by bookmakers to be second favourite for the title" is plain wrong. As for the rest of the text - vast screeds are not needed, are sensationalist, and are rendered pointless by the fact that O'Sullivan has retracted his accusation. This is an encyclopaedia not a red top. SFC9394 21:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Since it seems we have an editor who doesn't want to discuss anything and threatens 3RR on anybody who tries to correct what are factual errors in the article what shall we do? Shocking situation. To further clarify - the BBC article says "one of the favourites" - no odds placings are mentioned. WH is going to be representative of the rest of the bookmakers - very few bookies would put him as second favorite, first time at the crucible and on a poor run of form. SFC9394 22:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So now we have it protected is the anon going to come to the discussion table? Provide a source for the claim that he is second favourite? Provide rational for the long winded and sensationalist explanation of Ronnie's (now retracted) accusation? 4 reverts as well by the anon it should be mentioned (after threatening me with 3RR), looks like breaking the rules is fine these days. Protection can't remain for 1 week, after all, this is an ongoing event. SFC9394 22:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You were removing clearly sourced facts and dishonestly claimed they were not sourced. It is trivia in the trivia section. Controversies are often documented and since the BBC commentators discussed it then I think it is worthy of inclusion. It's difficult to cite betting odds because they are updated as the tournament goes on, but Stan James priced Ding at 11/5 second favourite prior at the start of the tournament. Since I cannot source the precise odds now, I am willing to alter the article so that it reads "one of the favourites", but everything else is accurate and you have no case to remove it as you have been doing, and that is why the page has been protected. 88.104.21.47 22:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ranking points earned

PUT IN^^ --86.13.202.173 22:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)