Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 31.200.153.101 (talk) at 23:13, 13 February 2023 (→‎Six-red draw). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconSnooker Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Shortcut

Archives (Index)

Mink Nutcharut

I made a redirect for Mink Nutcharut, but thinking about it, that should probably be the location of the article itself. My logic is that all official scoring data uses this name over her official birth name of “Nutcharut Wongharuthai”. I guess this is a similar case to Sunny Akani? Thoughts welcome @Lee Vilenski: {{Ping|Nigej}] —CitroenLover (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose WP:COMMONNAME is relevant here. James Wattana comes to mind. If a player has chosen some new style of name for their professional appearances, I suspect we should be going with that. A delay might be in order to see whether it really catches on in sources. Nigej (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect is useful. I agree with keeping the change on hold for now. See e.g. WPBSA Snooker Scores, WWS Profile, Eurosport item from today, SCMP from 1 July. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME is indeed the policy to look at. I don't think we are at that stage yet, so a redirect is suitable. If you need someone to do a move over a redirect later on after she's established under that name, let me know. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, i think this is a good idea to wait. @BennyOnTheLoose: its worth noting that wst’s live scoring site at https://livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/ uses the name Mink Nutcharut [see archived scoring for cl snooker stage one/week 2] but unless someone sees the scoreboard physically in the arena at one of the upcoming tournaments, we provably won’t know how she’s being referred to officially. CitroenLover (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that we do actually look out for that being the name they are most known by. Even if the WST used that name for this season, she'd still need to be in a few high profile matches for this to be more known than her WWS name. We don't just change names because they are used by official tournaments, otherwise we would have changed it to Jimmy Brown temporarily. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thats fair lee. 👍 CitroenLover (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lee Vilenski: i think we should move Nutcharut Wongharuthai to the redirect, as the snookerscores.net website has no data for her under the former name, but has all her matches under the name Mink Nutcharut, which would strongly imply its the common name. CitroenLover (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that she's probably more well known under that name, not least due to the World Mixed Doubles. I'd be happy with a move. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. @Nigej: @BennyOnTheLoose: any objections from you both on moving the page so that Nutcharut Wongharuthai becomes the redirect and Mink Nutcharut becomes the base page name? -- CitroenLover (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sensible. My only concern is that we shouldn't go back and "correct" her name in earlier tournaments. Her name in tournament articles should be the name used at the time. The redirect then sorts out the rest. Nigej (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Nigej, with the birth name remaining as a redirect, it shouldn’t be updated to say anything else for her pre-2022/23 season matches. CitroenLover (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at recent news stories, "Mink Nutcharut" seems to be the more commonly used alternative. Her WWS profile also has "Mink Nutcharut" as the heading now. I'm happy with the article title being changed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1928 World Snooker Championship

I think a change to the draw template used here has caused an error in how the draw displays. Is there a quick fix? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Attenborough

Just a quick poll - should Attenborough be rated under snooker? The article obviously mentions his time as controller of the BBC and his effect on snooker. Perhaps he is slightly too parallel to snooker to be rated - let me know your thoughts. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Chris Turner's Snooker Archive a reliable source?

Opinions are being sought here. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been archived at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_382#Chris_Turner's_Snooker_Archive. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WSC Brackets

Hello WP Snooker. I'm reaching out to you all regarding the tournament bracket templates:

I notice that they are all standard 32-team brackets, along with an different accompanying tables. I would like to make the following proposals:

  1. Add the finals match to the tournament bracket for ease of quick readability.
  2. Standardize the tables. It's a bit odd that we have four separate tables serving the same function (personally, I prefer the format seen at {{32TeamBracket-WSC2-v2}} and {{1985 World Snooker Championship Bracket}}).
  3. Separate the tables into their own template and use {{32TeamBracket-Info}} for the brackets. This will allow both the tables and brackets to be easier to edit.
  4. Move the tables into their own subsection titled "Finals", or something similar.

If there is consensus to implement these proposals I would be willing to do so myself, as they would be fairly easy to implement. Additionally, if there are any features you would like to add, I can see what I can do to implement those as well. – Pbrks (t • c) 17:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on tables so far, Pbrks. There was a concern expressed at the FAC discussion for 1981 World Snooker Championship that the final table used there doesn't satisfy MOS:DTAB and MOS:ACCESS criteria. Will ensuring accessibility be something that you can help with as part of this initiative? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose: Sure thing. Accessibility should always be in high priority. – Pbrks (t • c) 22:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first question to answer is whether we need any of them. For other tournaments we have a bracket (or brackets) for the results and then a table for the final. It's not really obvious to me why we need this composite template at all. Nigej (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigej: Yes, that is exactly what I am proposing. I do not see a need for a composite template. – Pbrks (t • c) 22:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The original WSC template dates back to 2006 and there's no particular reason for us to continue with that style. I don't think there's any accessibility issue with the brackets, just the "final" part. Do we need a template for the "final" or can we just hardwire it like usual? I suppose it forces some sort of uniformity but if that was critical we ought to be the same for all tournaments. Nigej (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I feel like we are moving onwards simply because it was done that way previously. I recommend making a template for finals, once which is accessible. The 1985 World Snooker Championship article has a good one, but needs spliting from the main draw template. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that we can surely all agree that the original style (the first two listed here) where the scores are repeated, is a non-starter. As per Talk:2019 World Snooker Championship#Event finals table, I still hate the multitude of boxes in the other two, eg the "final" part of 1985 World Snooker Championship#Main draw. One of the worst tables I've seen on Wikipedia IMO. Nigej (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, there seems to be consensus have the bracket and table separate, so I will go ahead and implement that. As for the tables, we have two options. Either

  1. Use a template for the tables. This will help with both standardization and editability.
  2. Hard code the tables on each page. This will allow more flexibility with the tables, and not everything needs a template.

Thoughts on the two options above? – Pbrks (t • c) 03:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a good approach. I suspect there's consensus to retain a template for the "final". There's probably not consensus for the style of that but the obvious approach is to follow, say, 1985 World Snooker Championship and implement that, leaving the discussion about the style of the "final" for another day. (although I can't work out why we have "Players" four times down the left hand side, on a row that has scores and above a cell that says "Frame") Nigej (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 1985 template doesn't explain what the numbers in parentheses are, i.e. breaks. Otherwise, it's as good as any of the others, I think. Per the point above, it's probably better to omit the word "players" from the table. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My main criticism of say the final table at 1985 World Snooker Championship is that all I see initially is a mass of boxes with numbers, brackets, daggers, etc. Whereas when I look at 2021 UK Championship#Final my eyes are drawn to the names of the finalists and the result. Shouldn't we be helping readers find the important information. Nigej (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that 2021 UK Championship is good. On reflection, we're probably trying to pack too much info, which is of limited interest to most readers, into some of the finals boxes. There are alternative places that people can visit for that, for example cuetracker, a site that we, but not the WPBSA, label as not reliable. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things cuetracker does give is the "match progress" which is arguably of more interest than the detailed frame scores, but not easily seen in our current system. Nigej (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The big issue of that UK table is the screen reader functionality. That's why there are so many boxes in 1985WSC. Yeah, that isn't perfect, the repetition of players is a good spot, but if you used a screen reader on 2019UK it would read aloud: "4–79 (79), 133–0 (133), 25–90 (61), 80–19, 12–92, 40–67, 60–47, 17–85 (78)", which as you can imagine fails WP:ACCESS. I suspect this might be something we need to get someone with more ACCESS info to comment on, as I do prefer a smaller and less overbaring template. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that reading aloud "4–79 (79), 133–0 (133), 25–90 (61), 80–19, ..." is likely to be much more intelligible that reading aloud "Davis 88† 93† (87) 49† 65† ..." (although I've got no idea how these things work). Nigej (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of us do. I suspect we need greater help from WP:ACCESS. When you run 2019UK on a screenreader (which I did), it says "Afternoon, 4 minus 79, 79, 133 minus 0, 133, 25 minus 90, 61..." which isn't great. At least on the other style it pauses, highlights the individual box and says the number, even if that number is still a bit unintellegible. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that it shows is that you need a decent screenreader. Presumably the one you used would convert "Neil Robertson lost 2–6 to amateur player John Astley" into "Neil Robertson lost 2 minus 6 to amateur player John Astley". Endash is not the same as a minus sign, not here anyway. The other issue is that we clearly need to be aware of the 1 in a million using a screenreader and to improve their experience, but if that means that it's significantly worse for the other 999,999 then that doesn't make sense to me. Nigej (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished replacing the tournament brackets, and have nominated the composite templates for deletion. For now, the table portions have been moved to their own templates: {{WSC table}}, {{WSC2 table}}, {{WSC2-v2 table}}, and {{1985 World Snooker Championship table}}. In regards to the best format for these tables, the long and short of it is that there is a lot of information in these tables, and with that comes issues. Long strings of text are rough, but so is a table with 100 different cells. If we want to be in compliance with MOS:ACCESS, the best course of action would be to split the table into several tables (although editors generally do not like this). I'll make a mock-up of what this might look like; I don't know how nice it will look, but maybe it won't be too bad? I'll try to make several versions; hopefully there will be one we can all agree upon. – Pbrks (t • c) 21:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you have a link to the new template you're proposing? It's not mentioned anywhere here in the talkpage discussion as far as I was able to see, and it would be good to have as a reference. :) -- CitroenLover (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To the table? No, not yet. Still playing with things on my sandbox. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was the link I was referring to, thanks! -- CitroenLover (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legends events

Can I just clarify the status of these events and their coverage in player profiles? The question relates to this discussion at my talk page: User talk:Betty Logan#Hi Betty how are you. Betty Logan (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would disengage with a sockpuppet banned user (per this SPI), but my opinion on titles on players bios is that they should be for professional and major amatuer events. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your reply to DF147 and to Lee's comment here. "Bringing Legends Back to the Baize" says it all, just a chance for people to see some of the old-timers with no one really interested in the result. Exhibition stuff. Nigej (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a note to all - DF147 is now fully banned and blocked due to block evasion, so if you see a similarly acting IP, drop me a line. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably 37.228.240.57 Nigej (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Champ of Champs qualification table

I thought it would be better to bring this up here than on the CoC talkpage, but every time I read these articles about the qualifying tournaments and players, the order of the table makes no sense. All I've managed to glean is that tournaments seem to be getting grouped by their type: for example, the previous CoC and triple crown events are shown first. Following that are the majority of other non-series specific qualifying events, the Home Nations and then random other tournaments, before a list of qualifying players because of their world ranking.

This order does not make any sense and is very confusing to read. It would be more useful to sort this table by the events in the order they actually happened. The first entry should always be the previous Champ of Champs, then after that, all qualifying events (ie, events which provide a passage to the next version of the tournament) in the order that they appeared on the main tour calendars. This would be easier to read, than the disjointed order we currently have (which has the World Championship runner up in a separate row randomly, instead of being listed next to the winner of the tournament). Thanks. -- CitroenLover (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: @Nigej: @BenjidogFourEyes: ^ above --CitroenLover (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current order is the priority that the WST gives for their events, not something we have chosen. I get it's a bit confusing, but it's important that we state which events guarantee a spot, and which ones don't. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lee, sorry I'm confused because I don't know what you're referring to by WST prioritising their events for the COC, a tournament they don't (technically) run? I just went to the official website and the qualifying tournaments to get into it are just listed in the order they were played in during the season from the last edition [excluding all duplicate winners]. No such ordering like we use on this wiki is used, so I'd like a source to what you're referring to, so I can better understand your position. :) -- CitroenLover (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: bump ^_^ -- CitroenLover (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can only go on the 2019 edition as that's the one I worked on - but there was very much a tiered list for qualifiers, see [1] Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. Considering that's on the WPBSA website, I can't tell if thats just them grouping events for simplicity on their part or if thats a true order of "priority", considering that its under the purview of Matchroom Multi-Sport rather than being part of WST [although technically, they're just the same people]. That being, no such priority order seems to be being used for this years' edition, but we'll have to wait for more information nearer the time I guess. Honestly, it would make more logical sense to organise the list based on when the events were played from the last edition to most recent, but thats just me. -- CitroenLover (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than 16 tournaments, so they have to mark some items as being maybes. This generally means they group the Triple Crown events at the top, followed by the highest rated ranking events and then later some invitational events. I, er... Can't say I've looked into this year's event. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My worry is that the system has probably changed almost every year and the "one size fits all" approach is perhaps not the way forward. See eg this from 2014 https://championofchampionssnooker.co.uk/qualification-process/ which says "The list is in order of precedence. After the first 15 events have concluded, the remaining spots will be filled in the order listed below, until the point that 16 different players have qualified and accepted their invitation." and I think we do follow that in the 2014 Champion of Champions article eg Steve Davis last of the winners, although clearly not the last event played. Nigej (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nigej: I ended up looking around the CoC website and found an outdated document similar to that one for this years' Champ of Champs which was also grouped in the same way, but unlike previous years, pretty much every event from the main tour was listed as a qualifying evennt. Of course thats to be expected because of the Covid pandemic reducing how many events are available [and the document hasn't been updated to remove the Six-Reds which is certain to either happen "after" the COC for this year, or not at all until next season]. Alternative to the grouping of priority is to just list the events that they are using as qualification to the Champ of Champs, but in the order they were played between the two editions? -- CitroenLover (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WST haven't really explained things very clearly (and some may possibly say not at all). According to the WST website:
The qualifying list is comprised of 24 places, which are split into six sections. Tournaments within each of the six sections are listed chronologically. The first 16 different players on the list will form the field for the Cazoo Champion of Champions. ([2]https://wst.tv/cazoo-champion-of-champions-qualifying-schedule/)
This document ([3]https://championofchampionssnooker.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/1-CofC-Qualifying-Schedule-2022.pdf) seems to outline which group each tournament belongs to, although I can't see anything that says what would happen if each event had a different winner. Would only the winners of the top 16 events (the current Northern Ireland Open is the 16th event on that list) be included and everyone else miss out? Don't get me started on the fact that this list is also well out of date (missing a number of finished tournaments, and still includes the postponed World 6 Red Championship). From what I can gather, there are 14 confirmed entrants so far (add Ryan Day and Kyren Wilson to the 12 other 'unique winners' in the pdf document), plus a potential fifteenth player should there be a unique winner of the Northern Ireland Open which, by my calculations, would mean that Mark Selby would qualify as the highest ranked 'non-winner' and Mark Williams appears most likely to take the final spot if someone who has already qualified wins the Northern Ireland Open. Steveflan (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New navboxes

I see we have a couple of new navboxes: {{UK Championship winners}} and {{Masters winners}}, added to the long-standing {{World snooker champions}}. Personally I'm not a fan of these. WP:NAVBOXes are "are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia". To me these are not really useful for that purpose, being more of the decorative/banner type which pervade many sports biographies (see Ronnie O'Sullivan#External links). Happy to let it go if that's the general consensus here, otherwise I might try to get them removed. Nigej (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the world championship one - this is entirely keeping with other sports, having a template of winners of the biggest prize. Other events are kinda a slippery slope until we get a template for all the winners of the Black and Decker East Tooting Handicap league. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Senior events

Hi! We've had an IP change a lot of the World Seniors events to different definitions (some professional, some non-ranking, some "invitational"). This includes changing the definition on players pages. As far as I am concerned these are amateur events for senior players, so the only categorisation is "seniors". Let me know your thoughts. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly DF147 returned. He's the only one so obsessed with categorisation. To me "senior" is a nice clear category whereas things like non-ranking and invitational seem decidedly ill-defined. Nigej (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still of the view that removing non-ranking wins from the infobox might help. While it doesn't resolve the issue at hand, I feel that its existence does encourage his recategorisation. Not so long ago he was trying to add "Non-ranking" wins to Walter Donaldson (snooker player), something the rest of us find very odd. Nigej (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed up the articles, but I haven't got the played bios. My impression is that only quantifiable facts (and ones that people care about) should be in the infobox, which would just be ranking events wins. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the fact that Steve Davis has apparently won 56 (previously 54) of these while Mary Selby has won 9 and Judd Trump has won 7 is all utterly meaningless. Time for it to go until we have some have some meaningful categorisation that distinguishes between the Warsaw Snooker Tour/HK Spring Trophy/etc and the Masters Nigej (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this discussion and previous ones that I recollect, I don't remember any objections to the removal of the non-ranking parameter from the infobox (except DF147). On that basis I'll go ahead with removing it. Of course, if we ever get any sources for this total we could add it back, but at the moment there seems to be nothing. Ideally we'd have a source saying x won n non-ranking events but even a precise definition of what a "non-ranking" event is, and a list of such events, would be a possible way forward in the future. Nigej (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am just wondering why minor ranking needs to be removed as they are the easiest events to track down as there were only 65 events staged. The full list of the PTC events that were held are listed on the Players Tour Championship page. Full list of winners and events won on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.233.126.173 (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typo corrected. Nigej (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown information in infobox

I'm wondering whether it would be a good idea to add some Triple Crown information to {{Infobox snooker player}}. At the moment we list world championship wins (eg "World Champion 2001 2004 2008 2012 2013 2020 2022" for Ronnie O'Sullivan) but the number of Triple Crown events won and the dates of those are not in the infobox. We could simply add eg "Triple Crown 21" (I think it would be clear that these were Triple Crown events rather than Triple Crowns since it would be in the "Tournament wins" section) or we could use the World Champion style and add the years eg "Masters 1995 2005 2007 2009 2014 2016 2017" (and similarly for the UK). Nigej (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the way that the three events are treated are very similar to say, the tennis "grand slam" and golf "majors". However, I'd be against treating it the same way as they do in those spears, where the best finish for each event is commented on for every player. I wouldn't be against a total amount of wins to go next to the ranking titles wins, and also list all world championships, as clearly that is a significantly more prominent event. I do think it's worth mentioning the Triple Crown events on its own in the infobox, provided we don't list the amounts (as it'll be in the prose) and we don't do something silly like "Triple Crown: 0"... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia lay out

Hello can I ask. Are other people frustrated with the new Wikipedia lay out changes ?. Can anyone here explain why some players career sections are neat and tidy where the drop down sections are closed at all times and other players for example like Ray Reardon and Terry Griffiths have a drop down menu which is open at all times which looks very untidy. Is there a way to keep the drop down menus closed on players pages which would make the pages look tidy please ?. 31.200.129.208 (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what you're referring to. You always seem unaware that everyone sees the articles in different ways. What's happened is that we now have the WP:VECTOR2022 skin as the new default. Personally I find this ok except for the narrowing of the central part, which has been done to improve users "reading experience". Users can click on the little box at the bottom-right to toggle between narrow and wide (on my screen anyway!). Logged-in users can go back to the old version by going to Preferences->Appearance where they can select the "Vector legacy (2010)" skin. They can also unclick "Enable limited width mode" to make the wide mode their default. There's even less reason now to edit articles so that they look "neat and tidy" on your own screen, this just messes it up for other users. Nigej (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest, as a blocked user, you refrain from editing Wikipedia. The new skin is changeable from your account settings. I suggest logging into your account, changing the skin to "Vector 2010 (legacy)" and then just read the site. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what's been said above, DF147 has made edits to 2022–23 snooker season putting in specific widths for columns, presumably to tune it up to be "neat and tidy" on his own screen. I don't think he's ever going to understand the issue here, or perhaps he just doesn't care. Nigej (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert per WP:DENY is the only solution. I do ban /64 when I see it, but there's plenty of ways to get around this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot out centuries

At Snooker Shoot Out#Century breaks we are listing all of the century breaks across all of the events. We don't do that on any other event. I get that making a century is rare in the event, but a proseless, sourceless list of all of the centuries seems a bit irrelevant. Any thoughts on viability? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think its pretty important to list centuries in this way, since like you say, getting one in the Shoot-Out is extremely rare. I wouldn't necessarily say the information is "sourceless", merely that they've been copied from the individual editions so they can be found more easily for readers. -- CitroenLover (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, so we should cite this in the article we are reading. I'm not sure something being rare is a good enough reason to have a list of something. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. Where we have articles for a particular event, then articles like Snooker Shoot Out should be a summary of those sub-articles. 2. It's nearly always a mistake to replicate detailed information in two different articles. On that basis I'd be in favour of deleting it. I see it's slightly different in that it's arranged by player, e.g. you can see that Gould has made 3 centuries, something not obvious from an individual articles (unless it's in the prose). An option would be to trim the list to players who've made more than one century, three people at the moment it seems: e.g. "There have been 26 centuries in the event. The following players have made multiple centuries." Even then we ought to have a source for it. Nigej (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 German Masters final

The Times’ is reporting that the final of last years’ German Masters is one of the marches being looked at in the match-fixing scandal: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/839afdc0-a0e3-11ed-be83-0b182bac2124?shareToken=049c326bc7c9558a4bdfbfc6e467c6e8

How does the wiki want to handle documenting the suggestions made in this? — CitroenLover (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, nothing. If the WST, or another source state that there was match-fixing in that match, then we will obviously follow through. If the WST or another source states afterwards that the match was looked at, but wasn't deemed to be part of it, then we should also say that. Right now, we have to be careful not to state that the match was fixed. I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't checking every match they've ever played together. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lee. We certainly shouldn't be adding anything to tournament articles. Probably the List of snooker players investigated for match-fixing article could be usefully expanded when the time comes. Currently it's all little more than rumour/speculation, which is not really our area. Nigej (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. — CitroenLover (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More info is at WP:BLPCRIME. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Tour Championship

Isn't it a bit early to have a qualification list for an event months away? I feel like it gives the impression that the listed players have already qualified. 2023 Tour Championship#Seeding list Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see we had one at 2023 Players Championship (snooker). Wikipedia is full of league tables and the like which are updated during the season, so in some ways this is no different. Personally I don't see too much point at the moment, especially when there's a link to the list in the reference. I can see that during the last event before the cut-off there's much more interest and an updated list perhaps makes sense at that point. If we need some sort of consensus I'd for that: it's ok to create it after the second-to-last event before the cut-off. Not a big deal either way I guess. Nigej (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the point until the seeding is confirmed, but I can see why you might want to know the event prior. We aren't really a place to follow this sort of stuff though. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that is clear is that starting this list too early creates problems. The two lists we have (noted above) should be exactly the same (for the top 8), they're both simply the 1-year ranking list. However they currently differ because one includes money already guaranteed by reaching the finals of the German Masters and the other doesn't. Just a mess. Nigej (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per my last comment above, I think it's clear that, at the very earliest, we shouldn't be starting such a list until the previous Players Series event has finished, otherwise we're basically maintaining two identical lists. On that basis the 2023 Tour Championship list should be removed. Nigej (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Billy (Joe) Castle

Is there any reason why the article shouldn't be changed to Billy Castle? His official page https://wst.tv/players/billy-castle/ doesn't use a middle name, nor does his own twitter account https://twitter.com/billycastle147 . I'm assuming that he was Billy Joe some time back but now prefers plain Billy. Could do a WP:RM but seems simpler just to move it. Nigej (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at newspapers in Newsbank it seems that when he was young he was plain Billy, then had a few years mostly as Billy Joe (2015-2020 roughly) and more recently mostly Billy again. Nigej (talk) 08:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you know we don't change names simply because they have changed their name, but I don't think "Billy Joe" has enough about it to be considered the WP:COMMONNAME. I'd change it per WP:NAMECHANGES. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These things are always a bit tricky. If I do rename it, there's always a danger that some editor will go through all the old tournament articles changing Billy Joe to Billy. A number of editors want to always point to the current article name, when they should be just putting in the name that he was known as at the time and letting the redirect do the work. Nigej (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
snooker.org switched to Billy at the start of the 2020/21 season: https://www.snooker.org/res/index.asp?event=842 (Aug 2020) has Billy Joe while https://www.snooker.org/res/index.asp?event=915 (Sep 2020) has Billy. Nigej (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that's probably quite accurate. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Performance and rankings timeline table

This table is hell to edit from an editing point of view, even if it looks nice on the page for viewers. Some of the most obvious issues include:

  • If a tournament is held just once and never again, we put it in the associated space with a ton of column spanning for "Tournament not Held". This looks really messy and is hard to read, especially on pages for players like Ronnie O'Sullivan. I'm of the opinion that "one off tournaments" should be moved to their own section which is just a simple table in a style similar to the calendar table that we use on the season page, which just lists the year the event took place, the link to the tournament page and the position the player reached in it.
  • Currently, tournaments are moved up and down the table every time the tournament misses a year, on the basis that it is "a former tournament". I feel it would be better to split up the table into multiple headings, with each heading only looking at ranking and non-ranking events, and a tournament should not be considered a "former tournament" just because one year has been missed. The benefit of this is that the tables will be easier to edit by making it clearer where ranking and non-ranking events are found.
  • IMO, an event should only be considered as "former" if it misses two consecutive seasons, OR World Snooker Tour announces the tournament will no longer be held. There should be an exemption to events that have been missing due to Covid because we have had no confirmation that several European events will no longer happen [eg Riga Masters].

Ultimately, the formatting of this table is just bad. And for players with decades of seasons, its even worse. We should try to sort it out and make things easier to edit while displaying the correct information. -- CitroenLover (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that there's a whole host of problems with these tables. I suspect we need a pretty radical reform. For starters: do we need it at all? (as an aside I had a go here: User:Nigej/Sandbox where I tried to stop the tournament name scrolling off the screen when scrolling right. Sort of works but editing is even more of a nightmare) Nigej (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's an argument to be made that the information is useful. I myself find it a useful assistant in researching information about a players' performance, which is quicker to do here than searching cuetracker.net [for example] and then scrolling through all the individual matches they played when I just want to know how far they got into a tournament [or if they withdrew/did not play in it]. However, the way that info is displayed arguably needs to be altered to improve the usefulness of the section. -- CitroenLover (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a must-have in articles but for some users it does add a positive visual aspect to the article instead of just a list of prose. A lot of the articles that have wide tables that roll off the screen already have a scroll bar e.g. Cliff Thorburn. The tables in general are most likely laid out as they are as they've just evolved into their current form without any common approach, but they could do with a re-vamp as they can be quite complicated and unwieldy (especially with players with lengthy careers). Andygray110 (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One area which does need changing is the use of all capitals in eg "Tournament Not Held", "Non-Ranking Event". WP:HEADERS says that we should use sentence case for table headers and it makes no sense to use even more capitalisation for cell entries. It should be either "Tournament not held"/"Non-ranking event" or "tournament not held"/ "non-ranking event", I'd be happy with either. Nigej (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - think the version with caps at the beginning ("Tournament not held"/"Non-ranking event) would cut down on users bickering over capitalising the completely lower-case version. Andygray110 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I like having access to these things as a reader, I'm not convinced that an overarching results list per person that is almost always uncited is a particularly good way to treat a BLP. I do think we should be a lot more selective as to what to include - I get ranking events, but outside of the Masters/UK, why do we need to include the results from every non-ranking event ever held? I feel like this isn't the best way to handle it, but likely the best way we have come up with to deal with this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Six-red draw

I've had a look at the last staging of the event, but copypasting so much of the page without making an error in trying to include the 2023 draw is daunting. The draw is right at the end of this page [you will have to translate from Thai into English, in order to read it]: http://www.thailandsnooker.org/news_detail.php?id=1244 and note that all Thai players' names are their traditional Thai names, not the Western nicknames they use. Ultimately, the draw is known now, but not when they will play: presumably the format / dates will be similar to the 2019 version. If someone could add this, I'd greatly appreciate! -- CitroenLover (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.snooker.org/res/index.asp?event=1402 has lots of details. No idea where it comes from. Looks like 32 players, 8 groups of 4. Bit confusing since it was originally stated that the 4 qualifiers would join 16 other players. Nigej (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the looks of it, the criterion was: Defending Champion [Maguire], the top 15 in the world rankings at some specified cut-off point [some appear to have not entered], 4 qualifiers [Zhang Anda, Chris Wakelin, Ali Carter and Jimmy Robertson], 8 Thai players [one assigned to each of the 8 groups], then the WSF Junior and Main champions [Stan Moody and Ma Hai Long]. If there are players who did not take their invitation, it appears multiple others fill the spots left by those who chose not to enter, which include Mahmoud El-Hareedy, Andres Petrov, Jimmy White and Ken Doherty. Jimmy Robertson and Ali Carter appear to have been seeded because they are the next highest ranked to ensure there's 15 other seeds which aren't the defending champion [which is confusing because both of them are qualifiers, rather than automatic invitees due to world ranking]. -- CitroenLover (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, seems odd... WST definitely said Four join 16, but looks like they changed their minds to 28. That does seem like it was likely the top 16, plus eight Thai players and then four additional players, who might well be Moody, Hai Long, El-Hareedy and likely Jimmy White. I don't know if Snooker Scene has any more info on it, or if we will maybe get some more info when the event comes on.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The field was announced on the World snooker website over a month ago. Only changes Moody and Ma replaced K. Wilson and Lisowski who have pulled out

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker&oldid=1139208754"