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 31.200.137.180 (talk) at 15:50, 28 December 2017 (→‎Is cuetracker blacklisted for adding tournament wins ?: new section). 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

RFC on sports notability

An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you use a library source to add an event to Wikipedia?.

Hi I would just like to know can you source the above to add an event or not please ?. 178.167.129.133 (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean but if you're talking about the general principle of using stuff in libraries see: Wikipedia:INDICATEAVAIL "If your source is not available online, it should be available in reputable libraries, archives, or collections." Nigej (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Seniors Events in 2017/2018 season

Hi I want a discussion on the above. Jason Francis announced 4 World Seniors Events for this season UK Seniors. Seniors Masters, Seniors Irish Masters and of course the World Seniors. My question is will we add these as non-ranking events or will a World Seniors Tour section be created there is already some confusion among editors on here. Any thoughts please ?. 92.251.202.125 (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the question I asked ! 92.251.220.53 (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Sharav nationality Scotland/Israel

The teams for this year's world cup have been announced and Eden Sharav is representing Israel should we change his nationality on Wikipedia?. 92.251.169.68 (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Snooker has his nationality down as Scottish so we should probably keep it as that. It is not unusual for players to be eligible for more than country through parents or grandparents. The only reason he is probably playing for Israel is probably because he isn't good enough to play for Scotland, and if he were world number 1 he'd probably be playing for Scotland. We should keep an eye on it though. Betty Logan (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about the World Seniors Events ?, 92.251.158.155 (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's RS out there that he's changed nationality. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source ?. 31.200.130.228 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few at/near the top of this, for example. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This interview qualifies his Scottish/Israeli heritage, but it doesn't explicitly state he has changed his nationality. Obviously if he has we should update the relevant articles but we should avoid jumping to conclusions. He is obviously eligible to play for both Scotland and Israel but World Snooker still have his nationality down as "Scottish". I don't think we should update his status purely on the basis he is playing for the Israeli team, unless we have a credible source he has actually changed his nationality. Even if he has taken Israeli citizenship he probably holds dual citizenship anyway, so I think we should hold back until we get more information. Betty Logan (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sympathetic to your view, but when he competes for Israel in the World Cup later this season, are we really going to put a Saltire agaisnt his name? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the 2015 World Cup (snooker) article is anything to go by the flags only go next to the countries. We can just add a note next to Sharav's name to state he is representing Israel in this event. The problem is we are getting contradictory information from World Snooker because while he is representing Israel in the World Cup they still have a Saltire next to his name on their Tour list. I have no dog in this race; World Snooker could just be lagging with their updates (I am still waiting on a new ranking list) and Sharav's nationality may be updated to Israeli in due course, but I think we should just accept it is an open question at this point. Betty Logan (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Sensible. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Logan looks like the new rankings are out, btw, along with a barely comprehensible statement about the ITC holders. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Actually, while I have somebody active on this page could I get a second (third?) opinion at Talk:List_of_world_number-one_snooker_players#Changes_from_seasons_to_weeks_in_the_Duration_column. An editor has twice made an edit I don't agree with. I am not exactly thrilled with the version I have reverted to to be honest but it seems to me the recent edits are exacerbating the existing problems. I have suggested some alternatives and would like to get some input from other snooker editors. Betty Logan (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done And feel free to stop by Talk:Snooker_season_2017/2018#Colours_in_table yourself! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Masters draw made

Hi can someone create an event page for this on the 17/18 season page please the quarter finals have been announced.178.167.152.117 (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone ever answer on this bloody page 92.251.157.92 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a redirect at Hong Kong Masters so the page can now be edited. Betty Logan (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How that only sends you to 17/18 season page I don't understand? 92.251.157.92 (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on this link you will be able to edit the page. Betty Logan (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I haven't a clue how to create a page I have never done it that why I asked on here. 92.251.228.232 (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone createa page for this event the draw has been made in know it if that helps anyone ?. 92.251.142.177 (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I didn't leave a redirect as the original page should be for the overall tournament. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future Paul Hunter Classics

I recently created the page for this year's event, and in doing so had to overcome a blacklisting issue, using my admin tools.

Pleased to tell you that thanks to Tavix, in future, anyone will be able to create a page for one of these tournaments. --15:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC) (Sorry, that was me failing to sign properly --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Will the new World Seniors Tour

Be classed as non-ranking events or do we know yet. Jason Francis mentioned something about ranking lists for amateur players only not the former players. Does anyone know anything about this ?,92.251.130.4 (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know how these will be classed ? 178.167.192.161 (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings pre and post 2017 Riga Masters

I have added a "Revision 2" column to Snooker world rankings 2017/2018 which reflects the post-2017 Riga Masters rankings (I hope) and I have changed Template:Infobox snooker player/rankings to reflect this. I've just added the 105 players with some money to Template:Infobox snooker player/rankings, ignoring the remaining 26 who have no official money at the moment, so that no "current ranking" appears in the infobox for, say, Joe Swail. I have currently left the "Revision 1" column in Snooker world rankings 2017/2018 unchanged, although it seems from Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 and its talk page that it ought to be updated to reflect the pre-Riga Masters situation rather than the post-2017 World Championship situation. http://www.worldsnooker.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/World-Rankings-after-Riga-Masters-2017-after-appeals-committee.pdf has the pre-Riga rankings but not the points. Note also that Snooker season 2017/2018 has the post-2017 World Championship situation for "Seeding revision 1" which is presumably incorrect. I have added "Seeding revision 2" to this article. Some of the players "highest ranking" (in the infobox) are now out-of-date. eg John Astley (snooker player) has this as 75. He ended 2016/17 at 76 but jumped to 66 after the rejig, before dropping to 67 post-Riga. Presumably his highest ranking ought to now say 66 although I don't know what dates to use (June 2017 maybe). Nigej (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend updating the "Revision 1" column to match what World Snooker has down as the "start ranks", regardless of the total lack of logic that is being applied by World Snooker. The players are always re-ranked at the start of the season to account for the relegations and promotions, but in the past the top 64 ranks at the start have always matched up to the 64 at the end of the previous season (except in the season they transitioned to a prize money list). In this case World Snooker deducted the 2015 Riga points before re-ranking all the players, which is the first time to my knowledge that they have deducted points before a season tchnically starts. I don't know if this is a mistake or whether they've altered the ranking system, but either way I think Wikipedia should probably reflect World Snooker's rankings. If they have made a mistake then presumably this will be corrected on future ranking lists and can be corrected in due course. Betty Logan (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rankings pre-Riga are easy. Are the points at Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 column called "1" the correct ones to use? or can I get them from somewhere else? Nigej (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The points under cut-off point 1 at Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 are the post-Riga points, which should match up to "Revision 2" at Snooker world rankings 2017/2018. Confusing I know, but the articles have evolved separately. I believe that the two columns at Snooker world rankings 2017/2018 should match up to http://www.worldsnooker.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/World-Rankings-after-Riga-Masters-2017-after-appeals-committee.pdf, with revision 1 matching the "start" ranks and revision 2 matching the "current" ranks. Betty Logan (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I worked out they were wrong. I've updated revision 1 in the Snooker season 2017/2018 and Snooker world rankings 2017/2018 pages to be the pre-Riga numbers, as best I can, using the earlier version of Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 you noted in the talk page there. Nigej (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker world ranking points 2016/2017 says "The total points from the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 seasons set the rankings at the start of the 2017/2018 season." which is presumably not correct. Nigej (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to be incorrect on the basis of their first ranking list. On the other hand they may have goofed on the actual ranking list. Either way World Snooker is being inconsistent on the issue. Their website is woeful for information. We do a more comprehensive job here on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to thank you guys for battling through the technical challenges and doing this stuff. On behalf of the readers, you're much appreciated. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still a mystery why they removed the 2015 Riga Open which was played late July/early August but the 2015 Australian Goldfields Open is still included even though it was played late June/early July. Nigej (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the office boy has messed it up, but the problem here is that the rankings are set by WS so they are not objective facts that can be compared to an alternative source. I suppose the world rankings are whatever World Snooker say they are. Betty Logan (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't help that the WPBSA often come across (in many respects, actually) as making up the rules as they go along. I can understand the players getting fed up sometimes. The 147 bonus is a nonsense. Tournaments come and go in a way that makes Formula 1 seem normal. Ranking points distribution across tournaments is magnificently stilted. And the machinations around getting a tour card are frankly bonkers. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Top ten Templates

Template:Top ten Chinese male snooker players, Template:Top ten English male snooker players, Template:Top ten Scottish male snooker players, Template:Top ten Welsh male snooker players. Are these useful? Generally out of date anyway. Nigej (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, bin them. Betty Logan (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017_World_Cup_(snooker)#Teams_and_players

Why were China B seeded above China A? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume as defending champions. A little odd maybe. Nigej (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that'd be it. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking revisions

It seems from this (http://www.worldsnooker.com/201718-prize-money-schedule/ - see "Click here for the seeding cut off information") that the ranking revisions for 2017/18 have moved to their logical conclusion, ie they are revised after every ranking event. Although there is reference to "Seeding cut-off points" it is clear that some of these re-rankings will not be used for seeding anything, since there won't be any qualifying events before the next ranking event (assuming that that event has qualifying). eg the 17 September 2017 re-ranking (after the Indian Open) won't be used before it is revised on 25 September 2017 (post World Open) since the World Open qualifying will have already happened. The question for us is whether the re-ranking after every ranking event should affect the way we handle rankings. Currently we have an "Official rankings" section in Snooker season 2017/2018 which lists the top 16 after every re-ranking, Snooker world rankings 2017/2018 which gives the full list (again for every re-ranking) and Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 which gives all the gory details. Surely this too much now. I'm inclined to think that the "Official rankings" section in Snooker season 2017/2018 should be trimmed to just the season-start and/or season-end top-16. Another possibility is to abandon the idea of keeping an historically complete list. eg ATP Rankings has the current men's tennis rankings but they don't attempt to keep a complete history. Another possibility is to add the re-rankings to the tournament pages themselves (eg add a section at the end of 2017 Riga Masters). The use of "Revision 10" (or whatever) should probably be replaced with "post-Scottish Open" or something similarly descriptive. Anyway, I'm really just flagging it up as an opportune time to review the way we handle the rankings before we fully get going on the new season. Nigej (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings have been updated after every event since 2010 but the way we have always done it is to just document the rankings that are used to seed events (which can be found at the calendar). On that basis we don't need to bother with the two August revisions because according to the calendar they are not actually used to seed any events. The next update that needs to be documented according to the calendar is the revision on September 17th after the Indian Open which will be used to seed the International Championship. The re-ranking list is puzzling though because it shows that the 2015 Riga points were dropped when the 2017 ones were added (i.e. on June 27th) and not at the start of the season. This is how it has been done in previous seasons so looks like World Snooker made a mistake with its re-rankings at the start of the season when it omitted the 2015 Riga points. Betty Logan (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Sharav again

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker#Eden_Sharav_nationality_Scotland.2FIsrael.

We now have someone who's changed all occurrences back to Scotland and others changing it back to Israel. I suggest consensus is [re]established here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 I removed the flag and added a note. At this point World Snooker have put out contradictory information: he represented Israel in the World Cup but World Snooker still have him listed as Scottish. As pointed out in the note there are several plausible explanations for the discrepency so editors should refrain from making assumptions. My recommendation is to follow the example at the ranking points page by leaving the flag blank for the time being and hopefully this will be clarified at some point during the season. Ultimately Wikipedia is a place for recording facts and if those facts are not clear it is best not to spread misinformation. Betty Logan (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Carty

Could someone who knows what they're doing (ie not me!) update his performance/ranking chart, please? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Seniors Tour

Hi will these 4 events be added as non-ranking event wins ?. 31.200.163.163 (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are professional titles so I imagine so. Betty Logan (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From talking to Jason Francis via email there will be a ranking list for the over 40 players who take part with ranking points available, but the Legends players that are invited ie Hendry, White, Doherty, Taylor and Johnson will not receive ranking points. They are invites only. So it carries ranking points and Invitational invites. Will we just proceed and call them non-ranking titles as it's not part of the main tour ?. 178.167.199.16 (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It will probably be best to count them as non-ranking titles on the player profiles, or to add a field for senior titles. The seniors tour should probably be set up like the PTC with an umbrella article (like Players Tour Championship) and season article (like Players Tour Championship 2010/2011) where a seniors ranking list can be maintained. Betty Logan (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would non-ranking just be better besides creating anymore fields may Look to clustered if there are too many. maybe keep it simple ! 31.200.183.195 (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hunter Classic

Why is there so little [relatively] prize money for a ranking tournament, and given there's so little, why would top players bother to enter? The net benefit financially or in ranking points seems hardly worth the bother. And I can't believe they're doing it for the glory or the thrill of the competition. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably because of the Paul Hunter association. It was named in his honour and many of the top players who were on the tour with him choose to compete in it. In the past some of the players have chosen to donate their prize money from it to the Paul Hunter foundation so I think there is a strong charity element to it. Betty Logan (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK that explains why they're competing. Thanks. Doesn't really make sense though for a ranking tournament to have such pathetic prizes - hardly any impact on rankings. Someone who qualifies through three rounds and then beats three players in the main tournament to make the last 16, gets less than £2000 and less than 2000 points. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a legacy of the PTC era. The Paul Hunter Classic started off as a pro-am and has always had a pro-am prize structure; if it had not been for the Hunter connection I think it would have been canned when the PTC finished last year. Betty Logan (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason it has stayed like the other PTC events which have survived the Riga Masters and Gibraltar Open is because they are self sustaining. The Paul Hunter name has nothing to do with attracting players Ronnie, Higgins, Robbo, Trump, Ding, Fu, Williams, Maguire and Allen among others did not even enter. So the event has not received the same entry fields as in earlier editions. This will continue unless they raise the Winner's prize to at least 50k 178.167.194.145 (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Paul Hunter Classic in Fürth is a unique tournament. There are 10 tables and the watchers can wander around in the hall from table to table. And they do it with due respect to the players. Also there are quite a lot of snooker fans present from Friday to Sunday, so there are no empty ranks. When they are not at the table some players mix with the audience. And the best-of-7 format makes it a lively tournament and there is always action. Finalist Shaun Murphy sounded very sincere when he emphasized the extra quality of the PHC, and he took quite an ordeal to get from China to Germany. Of course there are players who do not like the close contact with the audience. And China Championship, Eurosport absence, and low budget also make it less attractive. But as I gather from the commentaries that WPBSA tries to keep it up because it is a special tournament with more tradition than many new events. -- HvW (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at NSPORTS

Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack | talk page 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker rankings

We have a right mess. Snooker season 2017/2018 is up to revision 5. Snooker world rankings 2017/2018 is out of date but has revision 3 corresponding to Snooker season 2017/2018 revision 4. Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 is up-to-date (and seems to be correct) going to revision 3 (actually a provisional ranking I think). Last time I made a suggestion in this area I got slapped down, so I'm reluctant to get involved. Can we have some clarify please. PS I've updated Template:Infobox snooker player/rankings which is up to date but doesn't correspond to a seeding update (as I understand it). Nigej (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit puzzled by why you think I "slapped" you down at #Ranking_revisions. What I said was that there was no point documenting ranking revisions that are not used to seed events. Even though the rankings are updated after every event only the seedings at the "cut-off" points have been recorded histroically on the snooker articles. So far there have been three sets of rankings used for seedings this season, so Snooker world rankings 2017/2018 is actually up to date: revision 3 corresponds to the rankings currently used to seed tournaments. Revision 3 corresponds to "cut-off point 2" at Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018. "Cut-off point 3" is currently provisional and is updated as the results come in; the third cut-off will be finalised on October 9 and that will become revision 4 at Snooker world rankings 2017/2018. Snooker_season_2017/2018#Official_rankings is actually wrong: it states that the season is up to its 5th seeding revision but this is simply not correct as you can see at http://www.worldsnooker.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Calendar-2017-18-v19.pdf. Betty Logan (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite see why the three pages are written in such a way that it seems only you can understand them. Surely they should have some decent explanation, not just something written here. We have Snooker world rankings 2017/2018 which says "The following table contains the rankings, which were used to determine the seedings for certain tournaments.", the comma implying that it is a complete list of ranking changes. Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 makes no reference to "3" not really being 3 but a provisional list. Snooker_season_2017/2018#Official_rankings is all wrong and then you say: Revision 3 corresponds to "cut-off point 2" which is clearly confusing. I'm also confused as to why "that there was no point documenting ranking revisions" when we list a player's highest ranking which presumably includes the non-seeding rankings. I find it a bit odd that you so happy with the current state of play. Nigej (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The articles have developed independently and serve different functions. One records the ranking updates and the other points accumulated throughout the season. Prior to 2010 there were no updates and the rankings lasted all season, so the total points at Snooker world ranking points 2008/2009 set the rankings at Snooker world rankings 2009/2010. In 2010/11 the mid-season updates were introduced (and called cut-off points), and given the nature of how the rankings work and what World Snooker called them the first set of seedings were followed by the first cut-off point. So for example, the points at the end of 2009/10 set the seedings at the start of 2010/11. The points at the first cut-off at Snooker world ranking points 2010/2011 were used to provide the second set of seedings at Snooker world rankings 2010/2011. So you can see that John Higgins' points at the first cut-off in 2010/11 is 46470 which provided the second set of seedings that season. It might be confusing but the format of these articles followed the format as established by World Snooker. In retrospect it might have been more helpful if the columns at Snooker world rankings 2010/2011 were labeled "Start", "Cut-off 1", "Cut-off 2" and "Cut-off 3", but as I said the articles evolved independently. As for Snooker_season_2017/2018#Official_rankings, this is just wrong: Snooker_season_2010/2011#Official_rankings correlates exactly with Snooker world rankings 2010/2011 and this should be the case for every season. Betty Logan (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your very keen on writing long justifications here as to current situation but surely we need better articles. Personally all I see is chaos and confusion. Nigej (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have simply explained the structure of the articles and how they came to be that way. You say I "slapped" you down but as far as I can see you have not actually made any suggestions for me to "slap down". You say you are confused by the articles and I have freely given you my time trying to explain them so I don't really understand the hostility. I tried my best to sort out your confusion and I don't see anybody else replying to your questions. Betty Logan (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't pretend to be an expert on the topic. You're the one purporting to be the expert. However when I note the current chaos, you don't say "OK let's sort it out" you say "that's the way it is, like it or lump it" which seems an unproductive approach to me. Nigej (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All I have done is made a good faith effort to clear up the confusion and at no point have I said "like it or lump it", and I have never adopted that attitude on Wikipedia. It seems to me part of your confusion was caused by incorrect information at Snooker season 2017/2018 and I corrected that article. If that hasn't cleared up the confusion then we can take another look at it. Betty Logan (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, our main page, on this day has "1969 – Playing for Santos against Vasco da Gama in Rio de Janeiro, Brazilian footballer Pelé (pictured) scored his one thousandth goal." All a load of rubbish, of course. It includes all sorts of mickey mouse games but if you say it enough times people start to believe it. And I come from a cricket background where variations in published cricket statistics are an accepted reality and life goes on without banning one side or the other. Nigej (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Selby at 2017 European Masters (snooker)

He's played one match, won 4-1, yet has five televised centuries to his credit in the article. Impossible, unless he made 25+ fouls in one frame. --84.19.47.96 (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he's played 2 matches, since his 1st round (last 128) match was held over and played in Belgium. Nigej (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't call that "1st round" it calls it "Qualifying". If his qualifying match was televised and no-one else's was, fair enough but we should explain, not puzzle people. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how making 25 fouls bags you a century either. It would just give your opponent 100+ points over the course of a frame. Betty Logan (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If he won 4-1 and made 5 centuries, by definition his opponent scored 101 or more in the same frame, which would only be possible through dozens of fouls, as we have already established that Selby scored a century break. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant his opponent "made 25+ fouls in one frame". More confusion. Nigej (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple to follow he had played two matches and made 5 century breaks. His first match is called a heldover match as the world number one he receives the honour of playing all his matches at the venue. Is that all cleared up ?. Is everyone happy good 92.251.235.80 (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Lindrum

We have more attempts to add unsuitable material to the Horace Lindrum article. I have reverted these. Nigej (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Nigej; I have added it to my watchlist in case there are further edits of this nature. Betty Logan (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CueTracker

Do we know why CueTracker is (supposedly) in the global blacklist? I keep encountering ugly warning templates that it is, yet links to it appear in articles, so it doesn't seem to be blacklisted. Is there something ineffably wrong with this site? I would think it's about on part with lots of them and at least usable as a primary source for non-controversial things. If it's fatally flawed, we need to hunt down citations to it, remove them, and replace them with citation needed tags or other sources (and remove the content cited to it if it's controversial).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  00:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cuetracker has been added to the blacklist along with three other snooker fansites. There is a general accuracy problem that pertains not to just Cuetracker, but most of these snooker fansites. They don't even seem to be consistent on fairly fundamental statistics, such as century breaks. Just compare the list at http://cuetracker.net/statistics/centuries/most-made/all-time and the one at http://snookerinfo.webs.com/100centuries. Now, I have seen errors made here at Wikipedia propagated to Snooker.info so it seems to be the case that Snooker.info uses Wikipedia as a source. Cuetracker also seems to have perplexing inaccuracies. To take one glaring example, it has the now-retired Stephen Hendry listed on 772 century breaks, and Hendry's 775 century breaks used to be the world record, as documented by World Snooker, the BBC and Guinness World Records. If it is fluffing a recent world record what else is it getting wrong? There was a recent controversy at the Ronnie O'Sullivan article where CueTracker claimed that O'Sullivan was the game's highest earner, a claim contradicted by Eurosport. Now, Eurosport could be wrong but if a new prize money record has been set why is no-one else announcing it? It is generally accurate for match results but those can be sourced directly using the World Snooker data service. Generally I think it is a reasonable external link (kind of like how the film articles use IMDB) but I think it is definitely problematic as a source. Sure, Hendry isn't going to sue Wikipedia if we get his century count wrong but I don't think we should be feeding readers inaccurate statistical data if we can avoid it. Personally I think we should take a soft approach to this: the tags are annoying and some of the data we have sourced from these sites is probably inaccurate in some cases, but I don't think we need a major push to replace all these links. The data will be updated at some point and hopefully the blacklist will encourage editors to use reputable sources rather than rely on fansites. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me to be completely over the top. The usual "both feet first" style of User talk:Betty Logan. Personally I'm not convinced that the 4 sites mentioned are any more or less accurate than organisations/sites that Betty Logan would regard as respectable/accurate. High-handed approach where the most likely outcome is to drive editors away, which is surely not what wikipedia needs. Nigej (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point of a blacklist is that it's a blacklist. If the site(s) are bad enough to be blacklisted, then remove them from articles. If they're good enough to keep in articles, then remove them from the blacklist. There's no point in us trying to carve out some kind of "greylist" for snooker; snooker isn't magically special [not in this way!] and doesn't have its own sourcing rules.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  10:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: I agree with you that the blacklisted data needs to be replaced/removed; all I am saying is that this will hopefully occur naturally over the next couple of months so there is no need to force the issue right now. The UK Championship starts next month which will be a good opportunity to update the articles with fresh up-to-date data. If we still have a problem after xmas then we will have to be more proactive about it. Betty Logan (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but the problem is that, from the point of view of career centuries, everyone is in the category "greylist". I'm very doubtful that Clive Everton, the BBC and the rest of the press are any more accurate than the blacklisted sites. Who knows where their numbers come from? So if there's no authoritative source for career centuries we should remove them from the infobox and from eg Century break and shut up shop. Nigej (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't actually verify the information with RS then we shouldn't be offering it. If we have RS for it and non-RS for it and they conflict, we should be using the RS, and ignoring the non-RS, just as we would for any other claims in any other topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that many sources might be RS in some topic areas and non-RS in others. I would regard cuetracker as RS in its coverage of recent events but when it comes to career totals it is non-RS, as is everyone else. The black-and-white blacklist approach of saying a source is either entirely RS or entirely non-RS is clearly overly simplistic. Nigej (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding these websites to the blacklist is not the "usual both feet first style of User talk:Betty Logan", and I am disappointed to see Nigej mischaracterising my actions yet again. The issue with these websites has been going on for some time. There was an RFC at this very project page 18 months ago (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker/Archive_6#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS?) and the consensus was that these sites were being incorrectly used. The issue of the non-reliable nature of these sources was raised by another snooker editor at Talk:Ronnie_O'Sullivan#Referencing, were anonymous editors were edit-warring to usurp "reliable" sources such as Eurosport with these fansites. This isn't just limited to the O'Sullivan article, but has occurred at other snooker articles. I actually concede that some of these sites may be useful in some cases, hence the reason why there has been an 18 month gap between the RFC and the blacklist. Unfortunately editors have simply refused to use these fansites judiciously leaving us with few options. Now, who knows World Snooker and the BBC get their data from (and I suppose that applies to most of their output), but the point is they are considered reliable, and fansites are generally not. By the same token who knows where CueTracker gets their info from? The simplistic view here is that we can magically know when the data at sites such as CueTracker and Snooker.info is correct or incorrect. This may be possible for match results but not for career statistics that are aggregated over a player's entire career. We can never truly know when this data is correct or incorrect, but only when it contradicts more reliable sources and policy obliges us to pick reliable publishers such as the BBC and Eurosport over fansites. That's just the way Wikipedia works: it is an aggregator of reliably published facts. Given the huge contradictions in century breaks and prize money with more established publishers I do not see how CueTracker can in any way be deemed reliable for this information, and looking through player articles that seems to be its primary purpose. We certainly don't need it to source recent match results because there are other options available for that. Betty Logan (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
World Snooker is the governing body, so they're presumptively reliable for the official stats. That should be enough. If a stat isn't found in actually reliable sources, only in non-RS fansites or newssites that are just regurgitating stats they got from someone else, then WP should not include it, per our sourcing policies. There's not really any way around that. The fact that BBC or some other site, presumably drawing on old versions of the official stats, may contradict what World Snooker says today this minute, it of no consequence. We are not the statistics police, and the stats are not so important that we have any encyclopedic need to highlight a conflict between the governing body and some news site, much less fan site. PS: What brought me here, aside from the blacklist warning template, is that the vast majority of the edits I've seen to snooker bios on my watchlist for a long time has been editwarring over stats.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. There is no RS site which could be used to verify most of this information. The likes of World Snooker, BBC etc. can easily be referenced in providing a century count for O'Sullivan for example, but would the same be possible for a player ranked 90th? Not likely, as it wouldn't be deemed notable enough for that website to include, therefore it has a knock-on effect in having notability here. Betty is correct in saying the fansites have been abused; Nigej is also correct in saying that they are not wholly RS or non-RS; and I was drawn here for the same reasons as SMcCandlish i.e. the edit-warring over these stats. Take Mark Selby in the last 24 hours as an example; his century count has been updated three times without a citation and twice reverted. The warring over these stats will continue whether the sites are blacklisted or not, it will just be under the guise of original research instead of abuse of fansites. Andygray110 (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, World Snooker are the ultimate authority on this. I recall an incident about 10 years ago when Ronnie o'Sullivan made a maximum in the Irish Masters (2007 I think) but World Snooker ruled it ineligible because the game was played on non-templated pockets. For ages sources reported that he had one maximum more than World Snooker said he had. I share the frustrations of these editors; it would be great to have regularly updated and consistent statistics. For what it's worth I actually think there is a qualitative difference between a fansite reporting a match result (effectively archiving reliably published data) and becoming data producers themselves (which I think is what Cuetracker is doing). I am willing to turn a blind eye in the case of the former, but I think we have to draw the line at fansites compiling their own data because it is essentially OR by proxy. I mean, if that was really what we wanted on Wikipedia then the snooker project could do this itself and probably make a better job of it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a shining example of the problems with Cue Tracker, Ronnie O'Sullivan passed the 900-century mark at the Champions of Champions tournament. Subsequently he made one more century at that tournament and then another four so far at the Shangahi Masters for a total of 905 century breaks. Meanwhile, according to http://cuetracker.net/statistics/centuries/most-made/all-time he is on 899. You can argue that Cue Tracker is in the right ballpark, but is approximate data really good enough for an encyclopedia? I think if we add statistics to these articles we have to be able to vouch for their accuracy, and Wikipedia should be held to a higher standard than a fansite or personal blog. Betty Logan (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can all agree that cuetracker is out of sync with world snooker and I suppose world snooker has to be regarded as the authority in this case. Where they get their numbers from is a mystery and whether it's any more accurate than anyone else is open to debate. Who knows? My main problem is that your approach to the problem (ie blacklisting sites) seems to me to be completely over-the-top and out of all proportion to the problem. It's just a constant annoyance to users and editors alike to see the stupid hat-notes. I regard it as an ill-judged course of action and it should be reversed, especially since it seems to have been sneaked through without any serious debate. Nigej (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to admonish me, will you at least not do so in a disingenuous manner. There was a RFC on this project page 18 months ago—that you participated in—discussing the suitability of these websites as sources. It didn't get a lot of attention but regardless every member of the snooker project had the opportunity to participate in it and have their say. You had your debate and the outcome was that these fansites do not constitute a reliable source. It was conducted openly and it produced a consensus that they should not be used as sources. Fair enough, you disagree with the outcome, but WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, and 18 months is long enough for the situation to be resolved organically. As for the hatnotes, maybe readers actually consider it a service to be warned that there is a strong likelihood the statistics they are faced with are not credible, or at least not consistent with those of World Snooker. If you think the decision should be reversed then there is nothing to prevent you initiating a RFC to formulate a new consensus regarding these links. Betty Logan (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the old RFC, it seems that it was simply closed, albeit with 2 "unacceptables" in the survey section. Certainly, no course of action was mentioned. The course of action was chosen by yourself and I still regard it as ill-judged. Nigej (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The closing statement explicitly states "The self-published sources about living people are not acceptable. This is both local consensus in the survey section and site-wide policy." The only person at that discussion in favor of retaining these sites is you, and even the closer didn't find your argument convincing. Personally I consider it ill-judged and self-defeating having statistics in an encyclopedia that we can't vouch for as accurate. Betty Logan (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I missed the stuff at the top of the RFC. Anyway, we can't vouch for any of the career stats as accurate, so I'm not sure of the point there. Nigej (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is ultimately a WP:TRUTH matter. No one can really know exactly how many centuries a particular player has made; what we can report is what an RS says is the official count. The actual sport governing body is the most reliable source for this. And it really is just a stat for comparison with other players; they're all on the same official-source footing here. The stats become meaningless if we use official ones for one player and fansite ones for another, and self-reported ones for someone else. We don't really care if player X claims to do two century breaks per day while practicising. I'm not concerned about the fansites being blacklisted, as long as we make the template about it not visible to readers (it has a parameter for this, and I've been using it when I encounter these huge banner templates in the articles). It should be, and will be, visible to editors in source mode. At the reader level, just tag each such cite with {{User-generated inline}}; a little inline tag is sufficient for readers. Or just remove the cite and whatever is being sourced to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New complaint about CueTracker accuracy: [2].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about "complaint" but it's clear cuetracker isn't 100% accurate. I have sent Ron Florax a note about his error. Disappointingly he hadn't responded to me or corrected the error noted at Talk:Ronnie O'Sullivan#Error in cuetracker, which is discouraging. Nigej (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment & question The biggest issue and discussion above about Cuetracker seems to be with century break accuracy. Do inaccurate century counts alone justify a complete blacklisting of the site? I agree if the site was littered with inaccuracies in many different areas (such as competitons, match results, venues etc. then this site shouldn't be used. But there is much more to documenting snooker than merely century counts, and it seems excessive for the site to be blacklisted when there doesn't seem to be an issue with it's qualitative data, merely one part of its quantitative data. Also just a general question...if a site is blacklisted, can it ever be removed from the blacklist? Andygray110 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the problem with Cuetracker is limited to just century counts but to career stats in general. That would apply to prize money and head-to-heads too. The problem isn't just inaccuracy but incompleteness and classification i.e. Cuetracker seems to tot up the data in its database and this is why we are ending up with erroneous century counts, prize money totals etc. Beyond that does it really provide data that cannot be sourced from anywhere else? Betty Logan (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not in fairness. It does make sourcing a lot of older results easier by using it, but as you say if certain sections are incomplete and there are errors in certain sections, then I suppose we can't rule out the fact that there may be errors elsewhere (especially with old tournaments when there aren't other sources to corroborate). It is a shame as it IS useful as a research tool and is probably about 90-95% accurate as a whole, but unfortunately we can't cherry-pick from sites if they are proven to be very unreliable in the areas you've mentioned, which pushes it into non-RS territory. Andygray110 (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a better source for all of this information though? I understand things like prize money is often shown through the World Snooker website itself, but is CueTracker more accurate at reflecting certain bits of information than any other site? having a local ban on a page, that only has inconsistencies rather than factually incorrect information seems a bit over the top to me. Surely the Wikipedia standard was at one point at least to have CueTracker as the main source? I know in other WikiProjects, that there are sites that have unreliable information, but have some information that is useful on the page. The best example I can give, is Cagematch for professional wrestling, which is generally an unreliable source, due to lots of inaccuracies for things like weight, height and moves, but is fine to use for match listings, and championship lineage... And as such doesn't have a blanket ban, but does get frowned apon for being used as a source for everything other than matches won. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia standard has never been to automatically allow Cuetracker as a source. It is a fansite, which per WP:SPS should only be used judiciously i.e. when we *know* the data is correct, or at least when we have no reason to suspect it is inaccurate. For example, I don't really have a problem with the Snooker.org fansite because it mainly just copies over results form World Snooker's live data service (thus acting as an archive) and is accurate in that capacity, but there are so many inconsistencies between Cuetracker and World Snooker/BBC that when I see data sourced to Cuetracker I don't know if it is accurate or not, which kind of defeats the goal of Wikipedia. We are not just talking about obscure data, but even basic stuff like world records. If Cuetracker were being used responsibly and the abuse was in a minority of cases then I agree that blacklisting wouldn't be the best solution, but it seems to be overwhelmingly used to source career stats that are inconsistent with what the likes of World Snooker and the BBC publish. In this case it seems to me the disadvantages of the abuse outweigh the advantages of convenience i.e. we end up with more content that we can't trust than content we can trust. If we stripped out Cuetracker as a source from all career stats (which is where the problem mostly occurs) I bet there wouldn't be that many Cuetracker references left. And then if we replaced those left with other sources where we could I bet Cuetracker would be hardly used at all. The problem for me right now is that everytime I go on a snooker article I see where Cuetracker shouldn't be used but I'm not really coming across cases where it is essential to use. Betty Logan (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World champs category

I've opened a CfR, here, to use Category:Snooker world champions instead of Category:World snooker champions, for increased clarity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox_snooker_player now supports |honorary_suffix=

I've added |honorary_suffix= to Template:Infobox snooker player, so we can stop polluting the |name= data. Already fixed Steve Davis to use this; not sure who else needs it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  06:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.worldsnooker.com/osullivan-awarded-obe/ has a list, which may or may not be complete. Nigej (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not complete, since it doesn't include Joe and Fred Davis Nigej (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cliff Thorburn Nigej (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Lindrum, Clark McConachy Nigej (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie Charlton Nigej (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be using "honorific_suffix = {{post-nominals|country=GBR|OBE}}" or "honorific_suffix=[[Order of the British Empire|OBE]]" ? Compare Joe Davis, Fred Davis (snooker player)? Nigej (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you use the template in an infobox, it also needs |size=100 to prevent it being tiny. Either way will work; the template is just so you don't have to remember the name(s) of the article(s) to link, and it also does <abbr> tooltip markup, so it's a tiny bit more functional. It only works for the post-noms coded into the template. The "big deal" British ones are included, but some of Commonwealth national ones are not (e.g. whatever the national civilian medal in Trinidad is, and so on). More can be added, but it takes work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High break field in infoboxes

An editor has started adding "lists" of tournaments to the high break field in infoboxes. This is not so bad when just a single tournament is added but it is leading to some extreme situations. Case in point is Stephen Hendry. Is this a practice we want to deter or do you think we should let it slide? Betty Logan (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since most top players have at least one maximum, I'm struggling to see a need for it. Nigej (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's kept, it should be done with {{unbulleted list}}. I've been cleaning up after this well-meaning but messy anon [3], who's been inserting broken HTML all over the place, along with unhelpful line breaks and other problems, so I'll fix the using-<br>-to-make-pseudolists problem as I go, when it's a result of that person's changes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  00:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed about 50 of the article that person touched (just see my snooker-related edits over last day or so), and have run out of patience for it. I think he/she changed several hundred of them, mostly removing links, inserting pointless line breaks, adding bad HTML without closing tags, and using br markup instead of unbulleted lists, and removing {{cn}} tags that someone presumably put there for a reason. I've also been setting the hidden display parameter on the blacklist warning template to =true when I encounter it, so we stop spamming readers with a huge warning block we're not even sure we want (see blacklist thread above).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just revert the editor. We have a list of all the maximums at Maximum Break if anybody cares enough to look them up. Betty Logan (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just regarding points above, the edits on line breaks are continuing even on articles previously reverted, such as at Dave Harold [4]. Unfortunately a lot of the infoboxes are now very ugly looking. As mentioned above, IP insists on continuing the same edits, posting on the talk page is pointless as the editor doesn't reply, and I have reason to believe it may be an IP hopper who continuously makes the same changes (only on snooker-related articles), receives several warnings, then moves to a different IP to continue to make the same mass changes. Allegedly, as I can't prove any of that, although the editing history is strangely similar across several accounts. Some of the edits are unhelpful as well, such as Andy Hicks [5]. Why are inline citations being removed? Andygray110 (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid WP:SNOOKER has become the wild west of Wikipedia, and I sometimes think that we spend our time fining people for dropping litter while the town goes up in smoke. Nigej (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames again

We really need to do something about this. Articles like Stephen Hendry are chock full of alleged "nicknames" most of which are one-off turns of phrase by sports journalists. We have no evidence these are actual nicknames used by the subject or regularly used in their field by others, except in a few cases, most of which already have citations. Without this proof, assertion of some laudatory (or mocking) phrase as a nickname on Wikipedia fails WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV all at the same time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd be happy to get rid of it from the infobox. Otherwise it needs a lot of patrolling. We also have List of snooker player nicknames which also has plenty of dodgy entries. Nigej (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We probably don't need both. We can probably dump the parameter or the list. My preference would be to get rid of the parameter because the list is at least sourced. The list can then be weeded. A nickname in snooker is by definition one that an MC has used to introduce the player. Betty Logan (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing article: American snooker; and article or section: Channel Islands Snooker Championship

I have rather dusty drafts (I think I worked on one, and salvaged another from AfD); anyone should feel free to "adopt" these, or just write something all-new. I've been sitting on them for years and am unlikely to get around to it.

BBC article

Just read this article on the very respectable BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/snooker/42070352 . Got to the end and found "All stats courtesy of CueTracker.net", one of our blacklisted sites. You've got to laugh, haven't you. Nigej (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC article states that O'Sullivan has made "a record 906 centuries in his career", but yet http://cuetracker.net/statistics/centuries/most-made/all-time puts him on 902 centuries, so where has the BBC got the figure from? There are two possibilities: either the BBC has not actually got all its statistics from CueTracker, or CueTracker has supplied the stats but not updated their website. The BBC figures for Hendry and Higgins also differ from CueTracker's, so which set of figures would you actually advocate in this instance? Betty Logan (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've never suggested using any career totals from cuetracker, I've never added any and indeed I've removed a number from Wikipedia. The cuetracker totals are simply the current total for the data in cuetracker at the time. cuetracker realises this obvious fact too and has added on some missing centuries. To me this doesn't mean we should blacklist the site, it simply means we shouldn't be using career totals (or even season totals). Ronnie's total has gone from 900 to 902 in the last few days, without Ronnie playing, and there's still an error in cuetracker that I noted on Ronnie's talk page which has not been corrected. Nigej (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Ronnie got 2 in the first round of the UK hence the 900 to 902. Nigej (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing article: World Snooker Federation

The new body WSF was started by WPBSA to work around IBSF's alleged over-control of voting seats at WCBS. WCF is itself listed in the WCBS org chart already, above both IBSF and WPBSA. Info found so far is here, but it's just WPBSA's side of the story. may also need to update WPBSA article with some of this stuff (including the "declaration of war" press release they issued about IBSF in July).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  11:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan McManus

Hi, I saw that Alan McManus was on your list of topics to be updates, so I gave it a go, and updated the article by re-organising the career section into years, similar to other articles that I've seen.

As I am unfamiliar with WP:Snooker, I was wondering if there was any information for sources for earlier seasons for his career, as most of the information on the article is from after he had already dropped out of the top 16; and not the years where he was doing well (and the masters win). Anyone have good places for expanding this section? Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. Unfortunately snooker is not well served by reliable online sources, so it's quite difficult. For specific events, newspapers are quite useful (if you have access to any). I'm happy to expand the 1994 Masters (snooker) page which is perhaps the win he's best remembered for. Nigej (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World champions in snooker

Hi. I noticed that this Cat, whose name doesn't read well for BrEng at least, has been applied today by User:Fayenatic london to a number of biographies of players who have not won the World Snooker Championship.

Any chance we can get the Cat renamed?

Any idea why this Cat is going on biogs like Ricky Walden? If it's because he's won the rather immaterial Six-red World Championship, we should reconsider confusing our readers. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World champions in snooker says "This category holds winners of other world championships in snooker, such as Six-red World Championship and World Seniors Championship." so I guess this is the reason. See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_13#Category:World_snooker_champions which says "The result of the discussion was: split somehow, so rename to Category:Winners of the professional snooker world championship as a sub-category of Category:World champions in snooker, which is the pattern within Category:World champions in cue sports and some others.". All a little odd I agree, since if you said Ricky Walden was a world snooker champion, most people would think you were out of your mind. Nigej (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, perhaps just having sub-categories like Category:Winners of the Six-red World Championship, etc would clarify the situation. Nigej (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking along those lines too. I proposed a sub-category structure at that discussion which I still think is the best way of doing it. The rename was essentially about correcting a poorly formed category name, and we can still make sub-catgeories for the professional championship, the amateur, the ladies, the 6-reds etc per my suggestion at the discussion. We just need to come to an agreement about which categories we want and what they will be called. Betty Logan (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Winners of the Six-red World Championship is better. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be just six-red and seniors we need to consider to start with (eg Allison Fisher hasn't been done yet). Betty Logan suggested Winners of the Six-red snooker world championship and Winners of the seniors snooker world championship. I might prefer Category:Winners of the Six-red World Championship and Category:Winners of the World Seniors Championship but it's no big deal to me. As noted above we just need to agree. There's a WP:CATNAME for guidelines. Nigej (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By all means go ahead and create more sub-categories for each championship. If there is a consensus here for a better name for the parent than Category:World champions in snooker, I'd happily revise my close of the CfD. – Fayenatic London 14:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have particularly strong opinions on this but we might want to have the word "snooker" in there somewhere, especially for the Seniors event. Betty Logan (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker season articles – tiny table fonts

The tiny font use in the tables in the yearly snooker season articles is too small, and against MOS:ACCESS; it's even smaller than infobox text, which is about as small as we want to get. There's no reason to reduce the font size at all in those tables; they're not unusually wide.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  02:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this year there was an IP who was steaming through articles dropping the font size to values in the range of 70–80%. I reverted the editor on quite a few articles but it was an IP editor so it is likely I missed a load. Betty Logan (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I reverted quite a few also but as per Betty's comments above, there were so many reductions, and then similar reductions weeks later, that I probably missed some also. Andygray110 (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Career finals: Senior event section

Hi everyone. Given the new focus World Snooker has on creating an establish seniors tour, my idea is that it would be a good idea to create a separate section within players' career final sections to reflect this. Currently seniors final appearances (wins or finals) are included in the non-ranking section. Although they are non-ranking per se, they don't involve the majority of professionals so my view is it would be best to create a separate finals section, like we currently do with variant events/pro-am events. For example, the idea would be to split senior tournament finals from the non-ranking section and display Jimmy White's potential new seniors section as follows:

Senior event finals: 2 (2 titles)

Outcome No. Year Championship Opponent in the final Score
Winner 1. 2010 World Seniors Championship England Steve Davis 4–1
Winner 2. 2017 UK Seniors Championship Republic of Ireland Ken Doherty 4–2

Other players who would be changed would be any finalists of the World Seniors Championship, World Seniors Masters and any of the new seniors events such as UK Seniors Championship and Irish Seniors Championship. Any thoughts? Andygray110 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that's a very good idea. I'm not sure if the articles NEED this, but it seems very sensible to me. Would you change the infobox to reflect this as well though? Lee Vilenski(talk) 17:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not too sure about the infobox change. The reason I think that is that for some players i.e. Steve Davis they are of huge width already. He could potentially play in these events for the next twenty years which would extend one small section of the infobox to massive proportions while the rest of the tournaments stay blank. For example, see John Parrott's section which already includes World Seniors and could keep extending. Personally though I don't mind either way I just think it could begin to look a bit unwieldy. If they were to be included either all seniors tournaments should be included or none at all. Andygray110 (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was actually thinking more the infobox at the start of the page, although the list of tournaments is probably more important. Lee Vilenski(talk) 18:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry I misread you there! The infobox could also be an option, I've no strong opinion either way so would be happy to go with a consensus. Andygray110 (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          I have no objection to creating a dedicated section. As for the infobox while I am not completely opposed to creating a separate field my preference would be to just retain the status quo and count them as "non-ranking" titles. Secondary coverage generally breaks it down into ranking titles and all the rest, and I don't think we need any more distinction than that in the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          I agree with you there Betty, they are literally "non-ranking titles", I think the infobox should reflect that also. Andygray110 (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also said that but you did not agree with me ? 92.251.128.48 (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure if you're addressing me or not but I'll assume you are. I was merely agreeing with Betty about the infobox. I hadn't actually seen your statement below but now that I'm reading it I'm not sure whether you're talking about the infobox or a new section under Career Finals. As I'm not sure what you meant (and still don't) I doubt I would have been able to reply in any case. Andygray110 (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to create another section leave them as Non-ranking events 92.251.145.64 (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is cuetracker blacklisted for adding tournament wins ?

In Snooker cuetracker.net has a few events Chris Turner does not. If cuetracker.net is the only source for the event what happens ?. Why is it blacklisted and what other sources are blacklisted from being sources please ? 31.200.137.180 (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker&oldid=817467235"