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)

Dispute

General

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)

The page has been protected because there is a dispute, not because "I was wrong" - lets make that clear, please don't misrepresent. "One of the favourites" is what the BBC article says and is exactly the point I was making - he was not second favourite with any mainstream over the counter bookmaker and no source has been provided for that statement. As for the rest of the content - simply having a source for something doesn't mean it therefore has to be included. Too much weight is being put on it - the "trivia", as you correctly identify it as does not need long winded explanations of why Maguire was European Champion in 2004 - content related to any complaint O'Sullivan might have about past WC's is most relevant on those pages, not on the WC 2007 article. SFC9394 22:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Meta-comments: 1) Please do not impute motives like "dishonestly" to other editors. At very best this is an assumption of bad faith and at worst it is disruptive editing and a personal attack. 2) Articles should not have "Trivia" sections at all; any such material needs to be worked into the prose of the article. 3) Betting odds may well be non-encyclopedic to begin with, regardless of whose version is the more accurate, per "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". 4) For dispute resolution purposes it would be very, very helpful if each party laid out what they want the text to say, what the source is for every alleged fact in the desired text, and their rationale, and then each responded to the other's rationale (in a calm manner).  :-) In particular it would be helful to have the alleged direct contradiction between the two sources laid out so that the problem can be examined, and if necessary third and fourth sources can be sought to sort the matter out. 5) Yes, protection can't remain for 1 week, so this needs to get resolved really quickly. It can't be that hard to come to a conclusion. As a neutral party I'll check back in a few hours and if it looks resolved seek unprotection at WP:RFPP and even install the needed text since I'm not near 3RR yet. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

He made a dishonest claim - he removed a section of the article and direct quotes on the grounds they were not sourced. Read the BBC article and tell me if the facts as I present them are unsourced (for the record you are not a neutral party since you became involved in the dispute. And for the record I gave the controversy its own section, it was SFC9394 that moved it to the trivia section. 88.104.21.47 23:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: See meta-comment #1 above. Accusing your debate opponent of dishonesty is against WP etiquette and is a logically invalid straw man attack. Continuing to do so is not going to convince anyone you are right. Re: Trivia section: It's not about blame, rather I was making a neutral observation that there shouldn't bee such a section per WP guidelines. BBC article: Some of the facts as you presented them do not appear to be sourceable to the BBC article or any other source cited yet. Others can be. I do not believe that SFC actually "removed [X] on the grounds they were not sourced. One item appears to have been removed on those grounds, others for other reasons, addressed below. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"against Ding Junhui, considered by bookmakers to be second favourite for the title". Unsourced. End of story. If you can't AGF then there isn't much point is there? The other content I removed was on the grounds of sensationalism and length - I never claimed it wasn't true - I claimed it wasn't appropriate. Simply having something sourced doesn't mean it has to be included. SFC9394 23:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Looking at the sources: SFC does appear to be correct below that the "second favourite for the title" claim isn't verifiable with any source quoted so far. This one says O'Sullivan is "the favourite", but doesn't say anything about odds on Ding, only that he'll have to beat O'Sullivan. This one doesn't mention Ding at all. This one doesn't mention Ding at all. And lastly this one doesn't mention Ding at all either. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I have conceded that change, although it you check the odds most bookmakers were offering at the start of the championship is it not without merit to say he was joint second or third favourite. Secondly, if you check the 21:55 edit he clearly states he has removed facts on the grounds they are 'unsourced', not that it was sensationalist - which by and large most controversy by its nature is. 88.104.21.47 00:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And when I made that edit I posted a piece on this talk page (21:54) explaining exactly why I was doing everything, including the fact that the odds was unsourced and that the other content was sensationalist. I ask once again - are you interested in producing an article or attempting to attack me? SFC9394 00:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So you removed all the quotes and relevant details of the section because I didn't include a reference for betting odds? You could have just changed that part of the sentence if you felt it was ungrounded. I found a cached google page here for the first day of the championship which has Ding down as joint second or third favourite (not 6th) in most cases: http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:6WBbgwSzNvcJ:www.easyodds.com/compareodds/snooker/m/25390-19-3.html+betting+odds+ladbrokes+snooker&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk&client=firefox-a 88.104.21.47 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I don't believe that is what SFC said. It appears to me that the betting odds statement was removed because unsourced, and the other material removed because it wasn't relevant according to him. Let's try to each understand the other more clearly. And expired odds don't seem particularly useful here. Sports betting odds change all the time. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I gave a full explanation when I made the edit - edit summary:

• "DJ was 6th favourite, not second (William Hill) - comments WRT Maguire relate to another tourney - also subsequently turns out O'Sullivan retracted accusation"

and posted here (when you decided to blanket revert, with the summary "Ding started the tournament as 11/2 second favourite " - I can't find odds that short for him anywhere), "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)".

Are you going to discuss the content or the contributor? SFC9394 23:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Odds

Your odds link gives him as 2nd fav or JSF on 7 out of 22 bookies - does that constitute "considered by bookmakers to be second favourite"? 70% say he isn't. SFC9394 23:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The odds I went off were those issued by Stan James earlier this month when I placed some bets, where he was 11/2 second favourite. On that survey of betting odds, seven have him down as 2nd, nine as third, three as 4th, one as 5th and just two as 6th, so my claim was actually more representative. 88.104.21.47 23:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Question: Can we agree that month-old stats, that only relate to the opinion of a 30% minority, are not enough to source the claim that Ding was "considered by bookmakers" in general to be second favourite? Then we can move on to the other matter. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Anon-88 raises a good point. Could we instead agree to something like "Ding was favoured between 2nd and 6th by bookmakers", with enough citations to demonstrate at least those two points on the spread? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already given way on that point and I am willing to accept "among the favourites". I would be reluctant to replace it with "between 2nd and 6th favourite" as it gives as much weighting to being 6th favourite when he was clearly priced second or third by most bookies. 88.104.21.47 00:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The BBC wordage of "among the favourites" sits best as a cover all the bases. SFC9394 00:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed resolution of point #1: Say that Ding was "among the favourites" and cite two relevant references. Yes/no? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The other text

"noting that he had drawn Stephen Maguire two years in succession in 2004 and 2005 who was at the time the reigning European Open champion and reigning UK champion respectively"

is just unnecessary text - it is not related to WC2007. The quote from Ronnie, "Whoever is doing the draw is trying to stitch me up" is fine and in context to this tournament. I would say the noting of "no formal complaint" can be dropped unless it can be sourced easily. The WPBSA denial is fine and in context and the fact that Ronnie has retracted the accusation is fine and in context. Thoughts? SFC9394 00:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the fact it is unnecessary wordage. O'Sullivan specifically drew attention to his first round draws against Maguire, and it is necessary to outline Maguire's standing at that time. He wasn't alleging the draw was fixed because he drew Ding, he alleged it was a fix because in the last four years he has drawn Maguire twice and Ding. 88.104.21.47 00:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The BBC handles it correctly:

“ He lost to Marco Fu in the opening round of the 2003 tournament, and had to beat Scotland's Stephen Maguire in 2004 and 2005. Last year, the former world number one eased to a straightforward 10-4 win over Dave Harold. ”

Detail is not necessary, and the BBC don't bother with it - this is Notable moments, not run-down of players careers. Incidentally if the "tough" draws are mentioned then so should the "easy" ones. SFC9394 00:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add his easy draws to the section then that is fine by me - I prefer the inclusion of redundant information over omitting something someone might want to know. However, there must be some indicator of the stature of Maguire in the game (the BBC made their report in their sports section which assumes rudimentary knowledge of the sport) so the reader can see where Ronnie is coming from. 88.104.21.47 00:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ranking points earned

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