Jump to content

Talk:Steve Davis

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 11:48, 13 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 5 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "GA" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 5 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Snooker}}, {{WikiProject Cue sports}}, {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject England}}, {{WP London}}. Remove 6 deprecated parameters: b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured article candidateSteve Davis is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleSteve Davis has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starSteve Davis is part of the 1985 World Snooker Championship final series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 11, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
June 11, 2020Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
July 10, 2020Good article nomineeListed
October 20, 2020Good topic candidatePromoted
June 25, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 7, 2024Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article
"Find sources" tools:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 140 external links on Steve Davis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Team Classic match details

I am offering a fuller explanation here as to why I have reverted this edit by Diariser in response to the discussion at User_talk:SMcCandlish#Steve_Davis. I think it is probably better to continue a content discussion at the article talk page so the record is retained here, rather than in SMcCandlish's talk page archives [7].

I actually have a couple of problems with the edits. First of all Wikipedia is supposed to be a verifiable encyclopdia, not a snooker wiki. I am sure we all know interesting stuff that would enhance Wikipedia, but ultimately its credibility comes from having sufficient details to verify the information. I recommened that Diariser reads WP:Verifiability not truth. In fairness the result for this match is not difficult to source and that could indeed be included in the section (since it is already sourced in the results table), but the level of detail Diariser added is unwarranted IMO. This is a 200kb+ article that like so many snooker player articles (see Ronnie O'Sullivan) is in danger of turning into a giant match report. Do we really need to go into such specific detail about the matches themselves that have been non-defining in the context of somebody's career? When Davis put defending world champion and World number 1 John Higgins to bed in the 2011 world championship he pulled off one of the greatest finishes by any player of any era that I have ever seen, but we don't actually go into in the specifics. You can see the closing moments of the match here. The double on the brown to canon the blue into play is absolutely surreal, especially when you consider that if he misses he is most likely looking at a decider against Higgins. At the end of the day though while it is indisputably brilliant play it is not really defining in regards to his career so we don't go into specifics. Davis' maximum and his black ball defeat by Taylor in 1985 are the notable exceptions here because they have entered snooker folklore, but how many deciding frames has Davis won down the years, and how many times has he won frames needing snookers? It just seems a bit unbalanced to me that we devote more space to Davis beating Charlton needing a snooker early on in a tournament than what we do to what is possibly the only whitewash ever in a two-session final (mentioned in the preceding sentence). If that is indeed the case I would prefer to have more exposition about that.

Would this article be interesting for somebody who is only a casual viewer of snooker, or even someone who doesn't know about the game but is interested in learning more? I am not so sure. When we are documenting somebody's career we should let secondary sources determine what is important to cover and what is insignificant in regards to somebody's career. Betty Logan (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan - The question of "what is sufficiently notable" to be included on wiki is a perfectly legitimate debate and your points are perfectly arguable. I think it certainly deserves a mention that Davis won that State Express trophy for England almost single-handedly. David Taylor and John Virgo lost I think at least half of their matches. Davis won I think all of his, to scrape draws in both matches, and then won tie-breaks against both Charlton and Reardon. This underlines the point about his total dominance of the sport between Dec 80 & Mar 82 which I'm not sure any player has achieved since.
But whether we need to know that he needed a snooker against Charlton in the tie-break is, I would agree, perfectly arguable. However, I would make the following two points:
  1. it was not your initial reason for deleting my edit. You did so because my info was not provable, I have now verified it, so now you are coming up with another reason to delete.
  2. Forgive my ignorance as regards wiki etiquette, but who gets to decide what is relevant and what is not? If information is included on wiki, which by hook or by crook is proved to be correct, then surely editors should remove it only when there is a very clear-cut (rather than a 50/50 arguable) case of the material being either irrelevant, or giving undue prominence or weight to a minor incident? If I had gone on for another three sentences about exactly how he laid the snooker and how Charlton missed the escape off three angles or whatever, then fine I would concede that was a clear case of dwelling unduly on a minor point. But I think the edit was concise, and relevant to Davis' period of dominance.
Diariser (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Verification is provided by providing a verifiable source, and so far you have not provided sufficient details to enable readers to check your content. WP:Verifiability—which is a core policy—states "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. " The match itself is not verifiable because it occurred over thirty years ago, therefore you must provide the citation details for either a report on the match (which backs up your claims) or a video in a publicly accessible archive or collection. A video in your own private collection is obviously not verifiable for a reader. Betty Logan (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well it exists in the BBC archives as well as my private collection. Is that any different to material being cited from an long out-of-print book? Most readers would not be able to verify that for themselves either. It strikes me as absurd that material broadcast on the BBC television cannot be used as source, and indeed SMcCandlish suggests it can, as long as it is correctly referenced. Is he right, or are you? The WP:Verifiability seems to be silent on this question. Diariser (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Verifiability is not silent on this question. As I have highlighted in bold, verifiability means that people can check the legitimacy of the information. An out-of-print book will usually be available through a library service, so not that difficult to get hold of at the end of the day. And how can you be sure this footage even exists in the BBC archives? The BBC does not retain every single programme it ever broadcasts. Betty Logan (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the conventional interpretation. If the source can possibly be verified at all, even if it requires great effort and/or expense, it's a valid source. It is in fact permissible to cite TV broadcasts; all that's required is sufficient information to identify the material (probably name of show, broadcaster, airdate and time into the program, analogous to page number in a book). The problem with a home recording is of course whether this level of information is available. Was it on BBC1? BBC2? When did it air? Did you tape the entire show, and thus be able to cite something like 01:23:12 into the program as the timestamp, or do you just have that one scene? Aside from this question is the wording of the material. E.g. the "captained England to victory" stuff is non-neutral "sports journalism"-style writing. The "needing a snooker" details are maybe non-encyclopedic trivia, though beating Charlton might not be. BBC archives: are these accessible? Even if they're paywalled, as long as some means of accessing the material can be identified (e.g. a URL that requires a subscription) is sufficient. Sources do not have to be free.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for advice at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Citation of TV broadcast; I haven't dealt with TV citations in years, and it's possible my understanding no longer matches current policy interpretation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Davis: Snookerstar DJ

There's a new short film about Davis's sideline as an electronica DJ, of all things. News/review from BilliardsMovies.com: [8]. He's also apparently been doing a radio show for some time now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  06:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We sure live in strange times. Betty Logan (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all clear why this is 'strange'- should his whole life be about snooker? . he's well-known amongst musicians & fans alike as a supporter of the french band 'magma' & arranged for them to play in london simply because he wanted to see them himself. people who only know him from snooker would be surprised to see him on stage with kavus- I get that. but to those of us who also have music as a second career, it's the most normal thing.

duncanrmi (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Professional status

There seems to be a dispute over Davis's professional status. An IP claims that his pro status didn't end in 2014 when he dropped off the main tour (and received a wild card to compete in certain events) while Montgomery15 contends that pro status is defined by having a full tour card. During his wildcard period Davis still received ranking points for the events he entered and was still listed in the rankings. If Davis was not the 103rd ranked professional player at the end of 2015/2016, then who was? At this stage of his career he was still playing in tour events, he was still getting ranking points and he still had a world ranking, so I agree with the IP in this instance that he was still effectively a professional player at this time. Betty Logan (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would I Lie To You (S11E06)

In this episode, Steve did not recount his "cheese sandwich" story. Perhaps it has been cut out of the episode? What is the story? Honeybadger69 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK I answered my own question, looks like it was in the extra bits - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrH76aKA564 Honeybadger69 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Steve Davis/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 20:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Lee Vilenski, I will take up this review. I'll read through this and leave some in-depth comments later. epicgenius (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


General comments

Lead:

  • The BBC's Sports Personality of the Year in 1988, he is the only snooker player to win the award. - the award of "BBC's Sports Personality of the Year"? This should probably be rephrased to reflect that.
  • What's the purpose of mentioning his age at each event?


Career

  • Davis was introduced to snooker by his father Bill, a keen player who took him to play at his local working men's club at age 12 and gave him an instructional book: How I Play Snooker by Joe Davis. - First, is Joe Davis related to them? Second, could this be placed into active voice, like "Davis's father Bill, a keen player, introduced him to snooker at age 12". Currently, the phrase "age 12" is attached to Bill, not Steve, and Bill didn't introduce Steve to snooker when Bill was 12 years old.
  • before losing to Alex Higgins} - typo
  • at the Crucible Theatre - might it be worthwhile to mention that the Crucible Theatre hosts the World Snooker Championship?
  • After failing to qualify for the World Snooker Championship for the first time in his professional career in 2001, he felt that retiring would be the easy thing to do; - According to source 60, "the easy thing to do" is part of his direct quote.
  • Despite having his best run at the World Championship for five years and reaching the quarter-finals for only the second time since 1994, this was his last appearance at the Crucible; he failed to qualify for the World Championship again before his retirement.[citation needed]
  • After a defeat by Craig Steadman 8–10 in the second round of the 2014 World Snooker Championship qualification, Davis finished the season outside the top 64 on the money list and dropped off the main professional tour after 36 years. - this is also not marked as such, but it needs a citation, too
  • He announced his retirement from professional snooker during a live 17 April 2016 BBC broadcast, citing the recent death of his father as the main reason. - I think it would be better if the date were put first, since this is like "burying the lead" of the paragraph. I.e. "During a live 17 April 2016 BBC broadcast, he announced his retirement from professional snooker"

Other sports

In other media

  • Davis has become known for his coolness and conduct in high-pressure situations.[1] His initial lack of emotional expression and monotonous interview style earned him a reputation as boring, and the satirical television series Spitting Image nicknamed him "Interesting".[154] Davis now plays on this image, and says it helped him gain public acceptance - this goes back and forth from present to past and back to present tense. And I thought he retired.
  • Davis has published a number of other books. - How many exactly?
  • Top 10 hit in the United Kingdom - on the UK Singles Chart?
  • In general: it seems the second paragraph is about advertising, the third is about books, the fourth is about music, and the fifth is about TV appearances. Is that right? I think it would be good to have an introductory phrase at the beginning of each paragraph indicating as such, similar to what you did for the third paragraph.
  • Third paragraph: Music has its own section below. Should the two sections be merged?

Legacy

  • Davis won a record 81 professional titles and was the runner-up in 37 events. Twenty-eight of these titles were in ranking events. His modern-era record of six world titles has been broken only by Hendry, and his six UK Championship titles has been bettered only by Ronnie O'Sullivan. Davis compiled over 300 competitive centuries during his career. - I think it could stand to be smoothed out by combining the first two sentences, if it's related to being inducted into the Snooker Hall of Fame.
  • In the book Masters of the Baize, a detailed comparison and ranking of snooker professionals, Luke Williams and Paul Gadsby rated Davis as the third greatest snooker player of all time (behind Joe Davis and Stephen Hendry). - should this go after the career stats?

Career finals

  • Winner 38. 1989 Hong Kong Gold Cup Northern Ireland Alex Higgins does not have a source.

References

  1. ^ Friskin, Sydney (7 April 1981). "Davis can beat the system". The Times. London. p. 10.
  2. ^ Gary Clarke (2008). A Billiards and Snooker Compendium. Paragon )Publishing. pp. 20–. ISBN 978-1-899820-46-7.

POV and coverage

  • Article seems neutral
  • Article seems like it covers most of the key points. Is there any more on legacy or personal life? They seem a bit short
As he is still alive, and only retired a short amount of time ago it's not huge. I suspect his legacy would have been more if it wasn't for Stephen Hendry coming around a few years later and changing the way the game was played. I suspect when he dies there will be a lot of obituaries on this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No copyvios detected.
  • Images are appropriately licensed.

Sources

  • Ref 4 "Steve Davis Retires From Snooker – World Snooker". 17 April 2016. needs to be formatted with publisher
  • Some refs are not consistently formatted.
    Compare for instance, ref 11 "Board of Directors". Matchroom Sport. Archived from the original on 9 May 2011. Retrieved 10 May 2011. and ref 13 "Steve Davis profile". matchroomsport.com. Archived from the original on 18 February 2008. Retrieved 25 February 2008.
    Some refs have wikilinks to BBC Sport and some don't. Either link it only in the first ref, in all refs, or in none of them.
    Similar problem with World Snooker. Some have the publisher as World Snooker (which is wikilinked) and some are formatted with the website and publisher, worldsnooker.com. World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association.
    Some of these refs have publisher location and some don't.
  • There are nine refs with the same typo >Everton, Clive.

That's all. I'll put this page on hold. epicgenius (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FAC checklist

Hi! I'd like to take this article to FA, but there's a few stumbling blocks, if someone wouldn't mind giving me a little hand:

  1. I've never promoted (or attempted to promote) a BLP. I don't know if there is additional issues with this
  2. Performance and rankings timeline - this is uncited - I have zero idea how to actually cite these. My experience is that they are implicitly cited, but that's not really good enough for FA level IMO. The only place that might actually be able to cite this well is on the global blacklist (cuetracker).
  3. article needs a good copyedit, things like duplicate links and such.
  4. I'm currently reading Steve Davis' autobiography, (it's a good read), most of the later stuff is well cited, but there's quite a bit of info I need to add from his younger years that is worthwhile to add.
  5. Some worrying things I've had at GAN, is citing things like total money earned (career) and career century breaks. As he's retired, this should be easy enough to do, but currently isn't in the article.

Please add additional issues/solutions you may find with this one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski I'll give the article a top-to-bottom copyedit. Perhaps BennyOnTheLoose could also take a look after I'm done? As far as citing the uncitable goes, well if nothing reliable exists then the material will just have to go. A BLP is no major issue, just have to keep on top of changes and since he's retired things will be a lot slower than if he was still entering dozens of tournaments per year. I'll let you know when I'm done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very happy to help, Lee Vilenski and The Rambling Man. I've got some books that will cover the earlier years, but not so much on his later career, although I do have Masters of the Baize which I think is a really useful source. Happy to have a look for anything that gets marked "citation needed." I'd expect there to be a relevant article in Snooker Scene from when he announced his retirement, too, and will have a look for that when I can next get to The British Library. For citing the content performance and rankings timeline then Hayton's The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker will be good for most but not all tournament progress up to 2004. See Cliff Thorburn for an example of how I approached this when taking it to GA. (An editor later removed some of the cites saying "in-line citations not required in table; refs contained within wikilinked articles" - I disagree with that, but didn't follow up on as I've already had enough of edit wars there.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, it looks like snooker.org lists results from 2005 onwards (see 05/06 season), so we could be onto a winner. May I recommend having another row with references per year rather than how it was done on Thorburn per tournament? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have made this change - let me know what you think. It's at least verifiable now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. The missing tournaments from the CueSport book for Thorburn included the one-frame events like Australian Masters, New Zealand Masters, Pot Black, and 1990 Shoot-Out. I'll have a quick look for those tournaments and others that may not be covered in the book. I've never yet managed to track down any reliable source for the 1989 Hong Kong Gold Cup final result. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MBE

Hi. In the introduction, the title MBE is preceded by "a", whereas elsewhere it's "an". If somebody could re-read the entire article to ensure consistency, that would be great. Splićanin (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Davis&oldid=1206894639"