Talk:Ronnie O'Sullivan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Ronnie O'Sullivan/Comments)
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Ronnie O'Sullivan 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.
February 21, 2010 Good article nominee Listed

Find sources: "Ronnie O'Sullivan" snooker – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
Find sources: "Ronnie O'Sullivan" pool – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Career prize money[edit]

Unresolved: HIGH PRIORITY: This still hasn't been fixed in over 3 years.

This is in the infobox only, but nothing should be in an infobox that is not attested and sourced in the article. I.e. there needs to be information about this in the prose of the article, and the citation should be moved there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely: good point. Extremely sexy 12:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ronnie has exceeded Hendry's earnings by now — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

His father[edit]

Unresolved: There is consensus, that it can be added, if appropriately sourced, but it was not added yet. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely unbelievable that this page has no mention of his father being in jail. Given that it is mentioned in virtually every newspaper article written about him! (Mark King's mother is mentioned on his page). What a joke. (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is about Ronnie O'Sullivan not about his father. Armbrust Talk Contribs 08:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Presumably you'll be removing information about the non-notable doctor/teacher/postman/etc. parents of every other half notable celebrity with a page on wikipedia? Or is it just because O'Sullivan's father is in jail? (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
No, but if you want you can do it. Armbrust Talk Contribs 08:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I won't because I find it interesting to know about a person's background. I assume most people find family information interesting/instructive and this is why family backgrounds are included on most notable people's wikipedia articles. In Ronnie's case in particular it has often been suggested - by himself and others - that his temperament problems are a result of his family situation. Anyway, I am sure many more readers would be surprised or disappointed by your deletion of this information than would have been had you left it in. (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, it's an absolute joke as his father's jailtime has probably defined the player he has become. To not include such a thing is farcical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
And Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Armbrust Talk Contribs 08:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of this man's father, there's examples on here like Mark Ingram, Jr., which his father being in jail is not listed on his page rather his fathers page the Sr. This is correct because it is considered libelous information for the Jr like it is for O'Sullivan to be defamed by his father being in jail being on his page! This is the reason it was removed. Unlike Tiger Woods, who committed the infidelities it is not to be listed one day on his sons wikipedia page if he does become notable. All we can do is list his fathers and mothers name and sibilings, but not the derrogatory information about their personal lives because it is not HIM that done or did it! (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NPF. (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why all information on his father has been removed. This is a total joke. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It was removed, because the article was not focused enough. Article is about Ronnie O'Sullivan, not about his father, who isn't notable. (If he were he would have an own article, where this information should be.) Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a big difference between mentioning the impact that O'Sullivan's father had on his life (which is appropriate for a biography) and simply including large chunks of biographical detail on a person other than the subject of the article who is indeed only notable by his association to the subject (which is completely inappropriate). As this is a BLP caution must be taken. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, but that said, that isn't justification for removal of all mention of his father. If any reliable source offered information on his father's history having an effect on Ronnie and his career as a notable person, then that was encyclopedic and should be restored. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 00:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC) PS: The fact that Ronnie has been publicly adamant that and activistc about his father being wrongly accused and convicted is actually relevant information for this article. It was sourced, too. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 00:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Would be good if someone could now restore the information on his father. It was there from the start of the article until the GA reviewer suggested it be removed (on incorrect premises), and the editors obliged. I'm sort of worried that we're even having this discussion. See search. Needs to be carefully written of course. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I have his autobiography where there's whole chapters on this. I can put random bits in if people would finally agree. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
If it you describe it's effects on Ronnie (not just the incident), it is sourced and it is not overdetailed, then i'm fine with it. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Your comments above show that you totally minsunderstand the nature of article writing and the content guidelines. "The article is about Ronnie O'Sullivan not about his father", "Article is about Ronnie O'Sullivan, not about his father, who isn't notable. (If he were he would have an own article, where this information should be.)", both used to justify erasing even mentioning O'Sullivan has a father? Rarely have I seen someone misjudge so severely. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Everybody has a father, so why should we mention, that O'Sullivan has a father? Here is text which was removed:
"O'Sullivan's father, Ronald John O'Sullivan, who owned a chain of Soho sex shops, is serving an 18-year sentence for murder on the Isle of Sheppey, having been convicted in 1992 of murdering the bodyguard of Charlie Kray, brother of the Kray twins, the previous year. The trial judge gave a recommendation that he serve 18 years due to a claimed racial element to the killing, something he denied. The elder O'Sullivan had been in a Chelsea nightclub, and according to police embarked on an unprovoked attack during which he stabbed Kray's bodyguard and his brother. In recent years, his family has claimed he acted in self-defence, but at his trial he had claimed not to have been there at all. A 2003 sentence review accepted that Ronald is not, and was not, racist, but found that the murder was a particularly vicious one and kept the 18-year term unchanged. Ronald stabbed the victim and his injured brother a considerable number of times with a knife that the prosecution stated he had brought along with him to the club. Ronnie claimed in his autobiography that his father picked up the knife from the side of the bar in the club during the course of a row over a drinks bill so as to defend himself." Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The specifics of his father's crime aren't particularly relevant, the perceived impact on his professional career is. It would be best if we source something from Clive Everton or Phil Yates, since that would address concerns over the notability of what is included and also maintain some objectivity - an account from Ronnie's autobiography is going to be one-sided at best, factually inaccurate at worst. Betty Logan (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
"Everybody has a father, so why should we mention, that O'Sullivan has a father?" Because it's standard biographical info on any decent account of a person? This would apply even if the father had absolutely zero notability on his own, nevermind considering this particular case. I still can't believe you don't get this. Some sources: The Times, Independent, Telegraph, Independent, Times, BBC News, BBC News, Times, Times, Times, BBC News, Telegraph, Times, BBC News, Independent -- and so on. What's relevant is any info reported on by reliable sources in the context of Ronnie O'Sullivan. No one is suggested we use his autobio to cite facts about the case -- why would we? No, we use it to give his viewpoint, for which it would be a reliable source (other sources have also referenced his views in the bio). I despair at having to go out of my way to explain the fundamentals to people. Betty, do you support or oppose discussion on O'Sullivan Sr? We have this: Sources say O Sr had a critical role in O'Sullivan's role as a snooker player, managing him early on etc.; when he wins his first world championship, he dedicates it to his father; almost two decades after the event, he says he wants his father to be released so he can watch him play. And the response to this is: father not notable = erase all mention of father?? Christopher Connor (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Whats the problem, if there are plenty of reliable sources? Why don't you just add it to the article? As i said, i have no objection if it is properly sourced. Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem was, or at least from my interpretation of your comments, that you didn't think his father shouldn't be mentioned, because he wasn't notable enough as you say. Indeed, from your comments it seems like you've changed your position a few times. Your latest comment was "Everybody has a father, so why should we mention, that O'Sullivan has a father?" So I provided some explanation that directly addresses your question. And in response you're now claiming there's a problem and that I should add it to the article? We were at the "should we add it" stage remember? Please stop playing games. I take it then that you do indeed after all support addition of his father? Christopher Connor (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Support, if sourced and neutral. Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, problem resolved. Anyone feel free to add. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with including his father within the context of his career. His father's role in his career has been reliably documented, such as bulding him a practise room and so on. Is anyone actually opposing that though? The section as it previously existed though was an in depth account of the crime and trial which almost read like someone else's mini-biography, and that seems to have been the sticking point for its GA review. Betty Logan (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that is totally respectable, but to mention his fathers numerous failings, arrest, and jail sentence or time in this article is prohibited via WP:BLP. You all need to think what is and is not acceptable information to include in articles on wikipedia. Building a practice room is but fathers arrest is rather not and suspect at best. (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Auto racing[edit]

If he was racing as an amateur or it was some kind of celebrity guest appearance or something, then we should state that auto racing is a hobby of his. I've made this change. And someone else in an earlier thread had mentioned another hobby or two; if sourceable, they should be added with autoracing to a short paragraph in "Personal life" about hobbies.

If he was actually racing as a new professional racer, then auto racing should be a new section and expanded with additional details, with multiple sources.

SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 00:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we perhaps need a "media career" section like on the Jimmy White article. Top Gear and the auto-racing can come under it, as well as things like Power Snooker and Celebrity Pot Black where he and Steve Davis partnered celebrities. He was also on a dating show too cc. 2002-2003. These are things that aren't strictly part of professional snooker competition but noteworthy enough to be included in the article. That will leave the "personal life" section strictly for biographical information. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Power Snooker edits[edit]

Resolved: No comment since over one year. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There have been some recent edits grouping the Power Snooker result with the standard snooker tournament results: [1]. Power Snooker is purposefully put in its own section because it is a variant format and follows a different set of rules. It is inconvenient that it has "snooker" in its name, but it is a different game. Just as we don't group pool/billiard results with the standard snooker results, the Power Snooker result is also not placed with the standard snooker tournament results. If it can be sourced that the Power Snooker result is included in his official tally then it can be added in, but without such a confirmation then it should be kept separate. Betty Logan (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ranking in timeline[edit]

I looked through some of the other players profiles and none of them had the revisions ranking in their timeline. We should stick to the system of the ranking at the end of the season. The rankings are altered after every tournament. I can't see a reason why the revisions should be that important to mention them in the timeline. The final seasons ranking is much more important, the ranking throughout the season is just marginal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The official rankings are only updated after the cut-off points. I don't see any valid argument against the rankings to be included in the timeline, which earlier had a separate table. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The official rankings are updated after EACH tournament, the seeding list is updated after the cut-off points. And there is another problem. If you click on the ranking of 2010/11 you get to the ranking site with just the rankings of the end of the last season. --BK (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
As it is a project-wide issue, I suggest you should take this matter to WT:SNOOKER. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I posted it there. In the meanwhile we should remove the cut-off ranking. --BK193.175.141.2 (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Premier League 1998/1999[edit]

An editor changed the 1998/1999 Premier League entry from "A" (didn't participate) to "RR" (lost in round-robin stages). Does anyone know if O'Sullivan participated that year? I've temporarily reverted the edit because the editor didn't provide a source, and I can't find anything to corroborate his participation for that year. He was ranked number 3 that season so certianly would have received an invite, but he's not unknown for not playing in events.

I also find the 1992/1993 entry suspect because that was his first season on the tour, and I doubt he would have received an invite during his rookie season.

Can anyone corroborate his participation or non-participation for those years? Betty Logan (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It can be verified, that he participated. Fastest 8 frame match: 46 Minutes - Ronnie O'Sullivan 5 - John Higgins 3. 1999 Premier League, Cleethorpes. There. And I don't doubt hi participation at the 1992/1993 event, because he has won his first 38 professional matches. Other sources: 1993-1997 Premier League and 1998-1999 Premier League. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: It was replaced by a better photo. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have a better photo, perhaps from a recent competition? Ronnie has clearly aged since the current one was taken. Additionally, it is cropped down and not of a high enough resolution to still be crisp enough. FloreatAntiquaDomus 09:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, there is no other photo about O'Sullivan available. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Season 10/11[edit]

Resolved: No comment over five months. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 06:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there should be alterations in the covering of the 2011 German Masters in the Article. In the tournament overview it should be stated as no participation, and the circumstances of the withdrawl should be mentioned in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindlau (talkcontribs) 00:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please excuse me, I just noticed that the overview is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindlau (talkcontribs) 00:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Currently it's not in the text because it's not relevant. O'Sullivan has withdrawn too many tournaments this year to mention all. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


Resolved: Sentence was rephrased. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 22:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Does his nickname The Rocket - as it says in the article - really refer to his rapid playing style (reference)? I read somewhere, that it would rather refer to his rocket-like rise in the world rankings. --Enzyklofant (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Changed sentence as I couldn' find a reference for it. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - likewise in Alex "The Hurricane" Higgins - "The Hurricane" also referred to his rapid playing style, rather than terrible bouts of wind he suffered after nights on the beer - that someone, might have read somewhere, sometime.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

One-handed shots[edit]

Resolved: No comment since over a year. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ronnie O'Sullivan, in a game against Mark Williams made 2 shots one-handedly, as evidenced here. Do you think it should be included in the article? Is a youtube video a valid source?--Maksymilian Sielicki (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth mentioning since the frame was over. Lots of players play tricks shots once the frame is over. Betty Logan (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Betty. Not worth to mention. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 08:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Century Breaks (and other live infobox info)[edit]

There's a particular problem characterized by a minor edit skirmish around "Century Breaks" in the infobox here, but must be common to most articles about current snooker players. The number of century breaks in the infobox is not something that's easily sourced - I can't locate a snooker stats website that is diligently updated to keep this up to date. In the absence of a reliable source, we seem to have a choice between having an out of date figure that relies on the most recent news story on the subject, or unsourced data (based on what?). At the moment, we have a citation that doesn't match the figure that's put there, which can't be right. I'm loath to keep reverting back to information I know to be wrong, but I'm not wholly keen on having uncited information there. The only solution I can think of is to have an entry that says "Century breaks: xxx (as of <date>)" - but if anyone has a better idea, or a reliable source for the data, this would be far better. Any thoughts? Dybeck (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Than only update it if you can find a reliable source with the up to date stats. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 22:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, there are two places in the article where the century count is mentioned and the numbers are not in sync with each other. Wouldn't it be a better idea to instead link to — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbtietc (talkcontribs) 10:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. The linked list is totally outdated. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 11:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
We have to admit, though, that having information on here that we know for a fact to be incorrect is not really desirable. And out-of-date century info is incorrect, after all. Dybeck (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
But it is also not desirable to have an unverifiable number in the article per WP:V. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 23:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Indeed so. This is why I wonder whether "Century breaks: xxx (as of <date>)" would be better than either of these two unpalatable alternatives. Although the fact that people keep updating this number with unverified figures that I and others keep reverting back makes me think that there's a reliable source out there. If we can find it, this problem is easily solved. Although it may just be the BBC TV coverage, which doesn't really work for us. Dybeck (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Date for century breaks  added. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 09:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

677? or perhaps 682? ( Is there a definitive number? Nigej 10:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

677 is the number which can be found in a reliable source. is a blog. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 11:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
But we use for Century_break#List_of_players_with_at_least_100_century_breaks. is a continuation of that. (See: homepage "That was continually updated by Chris Turner who sadly passed away a few weeks ago, So I have decided to continue the century breaks list on my own website in the memory of him as he was the only one to do the century breaks list on the internet and I'm sure many people will still like to keep looking at this."). It seems a bit tenuous to say that one of these is a reliable source and the other not. Anyway I was more interested in which was correct.Nigej 12:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The Chris Turner's Snooker Archive is a reliable source because it was written by an expert, who has also written for Eurosport, see [2], [3], [4] and [5]. But the writer on the new website isn't an expert. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the current form is the best of the available options for the time being. Although it's interesting to note that the source documents O'Sullivan's 677th career century at 15:55, and a further century at 17:16 - so even with this documentary evidence it's internally inconsistent :) Dybeck (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Forget that - I've fixed it by finding a better source. Dybeck (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Most naturally gifted[edit]

"Stephen Hendry considers O'sullivan to be the most naturally gifted player the game has ever seen". Nowhere in the source cited does it even remotely imply that this is a factual statement. It is a dishonest claim given the source cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The source says: "I've never been so comprehensively outplayed," said Hendry. "It was faultless snooker, awesome - he's the best in the world by a country mile. I can't remember him missing a ball." We don't need to use the exact same words, as the sources. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to use the exact words, but what you're saying the source says and what the source actually says are two completetly different things. Had Hendry said the exact same thing after losing to John Higgins, that he's "never been so comprehensively outplayed," and that on current form "he's the best in the world by a country mile." would he also be saying that John Higgins is the most naturally talented player in the history of the game?

In 2011 when everyone was saying that Novak Djokovic was the best player in thw world at that time, were they also saying that his forehand was the greatest in the history of the game? Or that he was the most naturally talented tennis player of all time?

I mean how is this even a discussion. The statement you reinstated isn't just inaccurate it's downright dishonest, pretending it's anything otherwise is shameful. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a fan club where your bias leads you to cherrypicking, quote mining and intentional disortion to mislead the casual observer.

I am removing the sentence in the opening description and will take the necessary steps to maintain a level of integrity within wikipedia. Until you find actual sources to verify the statement you have no reasonable ground to stand on, and you know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

IP person is definitely correct here. It's true that we do not need to use the same words, but the one statement does not even imply the other. Ambrust, ask yourself this: if Hendry was being interviewed and after stating this, he was asked generally, "who do you think is the most naturally gifted player the game has ever seen?" would it be at all contradictory with his former statement about O'Sullivan, if he named someone else? Clearly not. I can actually probably dig up multiple similar quotes by pool players saying that "X is the best in the world as of X" and also find quotes by each one saying Reyes is the most naturally gifted player (because that has been said so many times by so many different people).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 May 2013[edit]

the number of century breaks needs to be updated (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Source? Armbrust The Homunculus 12:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Why can't I edit the article?[edit]

Is there a reason I don't have an "edit" thing on the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Because it is semi-protected. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Eurosport deal[edit]

A paragraph on O'Sullivan's recent deal to become Eurosport's global ambassador for snooker, produce a snooker series called The Ronnie O'Sullivan Show, and write about the World Championships for Eurosport/Yahoo! has been moved to 'Personal Life' by Armburst on the grounds that it is "not really relevant for career." I disagree. Many other current or former snooker professionals such as Steve Davis, John Parrott, Dennis Taylor, etc., have moved into snooker-related broadcasting or commentary, and this is understood on their Wikipedia pages and elsewhere to be an extension of their careers in the world of snooker. It is not relegated to their "personal life" sections, which deal with their lives outside snooker. So why should this be handled differently? Carton828 (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Because this is more related to television. Steve Davis' television appearances are also in the "Personal life" section. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The claim above is incorrect on a couple of grounds. Firstly, Steve Davis's television work is in a section called "In other media." Davis's "Personal life" section deals largely with his interest in football and his family life, and does not feature any of his snooker-related activities (either as a player or broadcaster). Secondly, the deal is for O'Sullivan to become Eurosport's global ambassador for snooker and help raise the profile of the sport internationally. Again, that is something he is doing in his professional capacity as a player and five-time World Snooker Champion. It is part of his career in snooker, not part of his personal life. Carton828 (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
My mistake, but this television show isn't IMO really relevant for his playing career. Maybe the "Status" section would be a better place for this information. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I note that the section in question is just called "Career," which should encompass all aspects of his professional career, including a deal with a major network to become the global ambassador for the sport. I don't think "Status" is the right place for this. I might suggest creating another section called "Broadcasting and media" where such work can be noted. Carton828 (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
That section is called "Career", because O'Sullivan is predominantly a professional snooker player. If he would be active professionally in any other sport, than would be more precise (see Tony Drago). A "Broadcasting and media" would be good, if there is enough information so that the section isn't too short. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
On second thought, I agree that it can be moved to "Status" for now, since becoming a global ambassador for the sport can be a sign of his status. If he continues to do more broadcasting and media work, it might be appropriate to create a separate section for that. Carton828 (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay,  Done. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Maximum and century breaks[edit]

There have been several recent edits changing the number of maximums Ronnie has made from 12 to 13. I will assume for now this is an honest mistake rather than deliberate vandalism, since these stats can be confusing:

  • Ronnie has compiled more than 12 official maximums in total, if you include exhibitions and his amateur career.
  • Ronnie has compiled for than 12 maximums in professional competition if you include those made on non-ratified tables.

Therefore it is not too diffcult to find evidence of more than 12 maximums. However, the stat in the infobox specifically relates to maximums made in professional competition on a ratified table. These are carefully documented by the WPBSA and Ronnie's count stands at 12, and can be verified at his World Snooker profile. The full list of ratified maximums in pro competition can be found at Maximum break#List of official maximum breaks.

As an aside, will editors also please update the source when they update his century count as well. I appreciate this can be a pain in the arse but if we don't have a source it is impossible to tell whether someone is posting fake data, and on occasion the same century can be added multiple times if editors just update the figure while watching the match. Betty Logan (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Made his 13th maximum moments ago, and the stat is now correct. Inexperienced editors do commit the error of changing the figure without updating (or having) the source. I suppose we'll have the source for 13 shortly. GregorB (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Please note I posted that two days ago. The editor in question has very few edits, but maybe he was psychic! Betty Logan (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Birthplace 2[edit]

Apparently there's no English county he wasn't born in (not to mention being brought up or just plain living), depending on the source you're looking at. Could anyone, please, shed some light on this mystery? Is he from Chigwell, Essex? Or Wordsley, West Midlands? Some other place?

The very first sentence of the article and infobox contradict at the moment. Splićanin (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Ronnie_O'Sullivan#Personal_life says he was born in the West Midlands but grew up and lives in Chigwell, so the lead and infobox do not appear to contradict each other. Betty Logan (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

1992/93 season[edit]

The article states "O'Sullivan began the 1992/1993 season by winning 74 of his first 76 professional matches". Is this correct? The article referenced a little further on,, states that it was 47. Jordantrew (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

2011 Premier League[edit]

For the 2011 Premier League Snooker the rules of the tournament were altered. The rule changes entailed that all deciding frames would be played under Snooker Shoot-Out rules. According to the governing body both the Shoot-Out and Six-Reds format are classified as "alternative forms of snooker". This can be verified at The rule book is in PDF format and the alternative rules are detailed about half-way through the book. As a result of this the snooker articles on Wikipedia reflect this distinction in format.

In 2011, the long-running Premier League adopted the Shoot-Out rules for deciding frames. This can be verified at To quote the source:

Format: There will be two semi-finals, and a final each evening. Each match would be of 4 frames, if a player wins 3 frames then the fourth frame is not played. If the match is 2–2 then the final frame will be played using the Shoot-out rules.

Therefore the 2011 event was not played completely under the variant rules. It's true not every match went to a deciding frame so the alternative rules were not used in every instance, but it wasn't played completely under standard rules either, with nearly every phase including at least one match played under Shoot-Out rules.

To this end the 2011 edition of the Premier League has always been treated as a "variant format" event. As of the end of 2015, both the 2011 Premier League article and the Ronnie O'Sullivan article classified the event as a "variant" format. This has been stable for five years. However, early in 2016, an IP from 178.167.X.X range altered the articles (see [6] and [7]) to declassify the 2011 League event as a variant format event, claiming "I have contacted World Snooker and have been told the 2011 premier league was classed as a non ranking event".

Personal correspondence is not an acceptable platform for altering sourced content because it is not WP:Verifiable. What we can verify is that the 2011 League was in part played under Shoot-Out rules and the Shoot-Out is played under "alternative rules" according to the official rule book. Therefore I am restoring the long-standing the WP:STATUSQUO until reliable (and verifiable) sources are produced supporting the IP's position. Betty Logan (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This year's Shoot-Out is a ranking event. Anthony McGill has been credited by all sources as winning the second ranking event of his career. It has not been called a 'Variant ranking event' win by any of these sources. It may have alternative rules but it's classed as a ranking event win. In that case the 2011 Premier League Snooker can be classed as a non-ranking event as it was in other years when there was alternative rules. (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Also Rolf Kalb and other statisticians counted the century breaks in the 2011 Premier League Snooker for players career totals which would not be done if it was a variant event.this information can be found out quiet easily. (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Ranking status simply determines whether it counts towards your ranking. The Snooker Shoot-Out is now a ranking event played under alternative rules. Last year it was a non-ranking event played under alternative rules. In theory there is nothing to prevent World Snooker awarding a Power Snooker event ranking status. What they award ranking status to is entirely at their discretion. Whether something has ranking status or not does not determine which rules it is played under. If you click on the rule book that I link to above you will see that the rules for Shoot-Out are detailed in a separate section called "Alternative Forms of Snooker". As for century breaks, all centuries regardless of the format have always been counted, except in Six-reds where it is impossible to make one. Betty Logan (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Power Snooker had a different amount of balls and scoring system. You just said it their yourself last year the Shoot-Out was a non-ranking event with alternative rules so if that is the case the 2011 Premier League should be classed as a non ranking event as it followed the same rules (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you happy with that ? (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Events played under "alternative rules" are what are referred to as "variant format" here on Wikipedia. It is the same thing. The distinction between events played under standard rules and those played under alternative rules (known as "variant format" here on Wikipedia) is retained because the official rule book makes the distinction. I don't really care what nomenclature is used (personally I would call it "alternative rules" like the rule book) but the important thing is the distinction. There are essentially three aspects to a format: whether something is professional/amateur/pro-am; whether the event is ranking/invitational; whether the event is standard rules/alternative rules. All of these things matter because they define the nature event. The World Snooker calendar categorizes events as ranking or invitational events and the rule book specifies whether they are played under standard rules or alternative rules. This isn't very complicated: since the WPBSA is the professional governing body then by definition it organizes professional events. Those events can essentially break down four ways: standard ranking, alternative ranking (the Shoot-Out being the only event of this kind), standard invitational (all Premier Leagues except 2011) and alternative invitational (the 2011 Premier League and all Shoot-Outs except 2017). Betty Logan (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

But Betty everyone is calling this year's Shoot-Out a standard ranking event that is my point. All Shoot-Outs prior to this year are non-ranking events also. Can we call the 2011 Premier league a non ranking event like this but make reference to the rules in the introduction as it does already ? (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's very simple also if an event like the Shoot-Out is classed as a ranking event this year it should be classed as a non ranking event last year as it used exactly the same rules no change in format whatsoever01:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Except they are not calling it a "standard" ranking event. They call it a ranking event because that is what it is, but the Shoot-Out has never been played under standard rules. Tournaments played under alternative rules have always been categorized separately here on Wikipedia because the WPBSA categorizes them separately in their rule book. Now, if you are arguing to ignore the rule book and remove the distinction between standard events and alternative evenets then present your agument in those terms, but please stop pretending that Shoot-Out is not played under alternative rules. The rule book says otherwise and I've watched the event many times. Betty Logan (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Betty you are arguing I am saying the Shoot-Out is now a ranking event and previous stagings are non-ranking because they both used the same rules do you get me ?. Surely you agree with that. It's not about opinion178.167.129.132 (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

OK the 2017 Snooker Shoot-Out is a ranking event and the 2016 Snooker Shoot-Out is a non-ranking event as they both used identical rules. Do you agree ?. (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You said that this year's Shoot-Out was a ranking event and last year's was a non ranking event at the top of this page. (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The ranking status of these events is not being challenged. The issue here is that Wikipedia has always made the distinction between ranking and non-ranking, and standard and variant rules, in line with the categorizations by World Snooker, and the problem here is that you eliminating the second categorization from the snooker articles. Your edits over the last year suggest the ranking status of an event and the rule format are mutually exclusive, but this is clearly not true. Betty Logan (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I am saying. I am saying because it's a ranking event this year it was a non ranking event last year as it used the same rules. Do you agree ? (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Put it this way do you class the 2016 Shoot-Out as a non ranking event with a variation of the standard rules of Snooker?. (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I class the 2016 Shoot-Out as a non ranking event played under what World Snooker define as "alternative rules". Betty Logan (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

OK I see you replied yes so if that is the case can we agree the same principle for the 2011 Premier League as a non ranking event with alternative rules or whatever as it used the same set ? (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You still there I'm going to bed soon it's late here don't know where you are (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is going around in circles. The point is World Snooker makes a very clear distinction between events played under standard rules and those played under variant/alternative rules and Wikipedia has always followed this convention. I do not see how removing this information and misrepresenting the nature of the event is helpful for readers. I think we should let other editors have their say now. Betty Logan (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Armbrust: Do you have any opinions on this? I recall it was you who categorized the variant events separately. Do you still hold this view? Betty Logan (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Betty you are just asking people you know will agree. I compile snooker data I have contacted World Snooker and have confirmation that the 2011 Premier League was non ranking as it was in all other years. Can I send this on to you please it's very simple — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

See the issue you can't argue over is this year's Shoot-Out. The Shoot-Out is a ranking event now not a 'Variant ranking event'. So if the Shoot-Out is a ranking event in 2017 that means it was a non-ranking event in 2016 not a 'Variant event'. The same rules have to apply. You said the same last night. That is my point. You can't say it's just a ranking event now because it carries ranking points and not call previous stagings non-ranking events when it was played under the same format. (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The same rules do not apply. I watched the event on television. This year's Shoot-Out—which was a ranking event—was played under the same rules it has always been played under, which are detailed as "alternative rules" in the official rule boook. I am done debating this with you. Betty Logan (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Layout Changes and Suggestion 15/04/2017[edit]

User:Hollycochran has made a series of edits to change the layout of the "Career" section of this page. This has included separating out sections into individual seasons, adding season to each heading, and adding a description of the Triple Crown victories for each season to the heading.

Personally, I am against these changes. Unless more content is added to the individual seasons that have sparse information then each of those sections are too small to be appropriate in my opinion. I cannot find a precedent for adding "season" to the titles of each section but I can find precedents against this. The descriptions of Triple Crown wins are nice but I feel it should be more of a description of all of the events and for all of the seasons. I can find other examples of this being done on other pages so I would support if it was done properly.

I am keen to know contributors views on this and whether there is support for the following:

  • Reversing the layout changes
  • Adding more comprehensive summaries to the headings of all of the previous sections

Finally, I have a layout suggestion of my own. The 2016/2017 section is getting rather large and I wonder if there is appetite for individual season pages like 2017 Roger Federer tennis season where more information could be added/moved to. Hollycochran's changes made me think there might be an advantage for season breakdowns like this. I would be happy to work on producing these pages myself.

Thanks Vlord1994 (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to have individual pages for every season, but it is getting to teh stage where the article reads like a giant match report. Maybe a spin-off article called "Career of Ronnie O'Sullivan" would be a sensible middle-ground. I don't want to have to read through endless articles to get an overview of his career, but moving all that stuff out would allow this article to get some focus back. Betty Logan (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on Ronnie O'Sullivan. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Ronnie O'Sullivan. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


Are or appropriate references? They appear to be non-official fan made websites? If so why are we using them on this page, we can do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlord1994 (talkcontribs) 00:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Using them in articles about living people or using them to make claims about living people is prohibited by WP:BLPSPS. In other circumstances per WP:SPS we are required to "Exercise caution when using such sources". Therefore I don't believe such sources should be used to source biographical or statistical information about players. Using them to source match results may be borderline acceptable—if we don't want to delete results from tournament pages—but ideally we should look for more credible sources. There was an extensive discussion about this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archive 6#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS?. Betty Logan (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • There has been further disruptive editing on this article regrading century counts. As discussed above statistics need to be reliably sourced just like any other claim, expecially in a biography of a living person. Fansites are not relaible for statistics. For example, CueTracker, and Snookerstats all give different figures for the century count. with 881 centuries matches Wikipedia's figure in this case, but in other cases it is far from accurate: it gives a figure of 338 for Steve Davis which contradicts World Snooker's figure of 355. These fansites cannot be relied upon for accurate data, backed up by an RFC consensus at the Snooker project. Please respect the consensus, WP:BLPSPS and WP:RS. Betty Logan (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • On a related note, WP:BLPSOURCES precludes us from using tabloid sources on this article. John (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

They problem has regarding century breaks is that he is not sure what events are official and sanctioned by ws as far as I know — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Which is the problem with fansites in general. They have no authority and no editorial oversight. That is why we require WP:Reliable sources for biographical and statistical data, such as BBC, Eurosport, World Snooker etc. Betty Logan (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC) is not a fan site by the way it is a dedicated snooker site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a dedicated snooker site run by a fan. It has no official affiliation to the governing body or broadcaster or news organization. Don't get me wrong it's good site but it is riddled with inaccuracies as I demonstrated above. The most obvious one is Hendry's century account: everybody knows he made 775 centuries but CueTracker is three short. Betty Logan (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Prize money discrepancy[edit]

I have noticed the above I would like to address (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

How do we get a definitive prize money total ?.[edit]

We have to reference dome site as World zsnooker really is a joke on this matter. Compared to Golf and Tennis they really should release official figures — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The situation isn't ideal which is why the snooker articles have gaps in their coverage. That is not Wikipedia's problem though; it is not our job to compensate for the shortcomings of World Snooker. Usually when a record is broken World Snooker announce it, and I am sure that will be the case when O'Sullivan takes the prize money record at some point during the season. Betty Logan (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

He already has it as he has passed 9 million already. Let's be honest ws are a joke and would not even know the record has been passed. They were only told about ROS passing the Century breaks total because of the BBC coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

On what basis can we be sure he has "passed £9 million"? If you can demonstrate it using proper sources we can add it to the article, but we are not going to add a figure that is not verifiable. Please read WP:Verifibility not truth. Betty Logan (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC) clearly states this on his site just happened this season ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Cuetracker states a lot of things on his site, and a lot of it is inaccurate. Betty Logan (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Century breaks total on Wikipedia[edit]

Hi I would like to know could we change the layout for the century breaks total made during the 2016/2017 season on Ronnie's page?. Is there any need to list all the tons which were made since since the Masters 2017. It seems to take up meaningless space. Can we just not take the 2016/2017 final season total of 50 and add that season total to the 824 from seaon 15/16 which gives us a career total of 874 at the end of the 16/17 season. Then add your 2017/2018 season century breaks by event until the end of the season. It makes it much easier. This will keep all the century breaks total up to date. One season total is enough and add to it with each event — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi! The need to list them out like this was because there is a lack of reliable sources for the century total. If you can find one, that would save all the hassle that you mention. But we can't just use an unreliable (i.e. no proven authenticity) source for the totals, that wouldn't be right. Vlord1994 (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

PRO Snooker Blog uses a century breaks total list and he works for the WPBSA. produces the same list as PSB. These are the lists to go by as I am a statistician myself but not linked to either blogger . (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any list of centuries at Pro Snooker Blog. But if your argument is that somehow is "authorized" by World Snooker that does not explain why they have Steve Davis on 338 century breaks while World Snooker have him on 355. Cue Tracker helpfully provides a list of which matches these century breaks occurred in, and while CueTracker is not a reliable for century counts either (because they have missing data) they also come up with a tally of 355. Obviously is excluding centuries that Cue Tracker is including, but which ones and on which grounds?[edit]

Hi this is the site that gives the proper amount of career century per event — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't; read #Referencing. Betty Logan (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wrong Adam works with Rolf Kalb who produces the figures for the BEEB and Eurosport so they are the correct figures.

I don't have a clue who Adam is, but if's figures are correct then please explain why they only have Steve Davis down for 338 centuries while BBC and World Snooker itself have him down on 355. Betty Logan (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Because Betty if you did your research has listed Davis on 355 and obviously they took the figure from there ok. I'm involved in this Rolf Kalb and David Hendon from Eurosport took the figures from Chris Turner's Snooker Archive but after he passed they took his totals prior to his death in 2011 and went with them but since Chris passed they could not verify the totals prior to that. As he only had the totals of figures on a spreadsheet what could they do.Adam liaises with them why would you know him ?. Now is that simple enough for you to follow ? (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not obvious at all. If BBC and World Snooker were taking century counts from Cuetracker—which there is no evidence of BTW—then why aren't they reiterating Cutracker's claim that Hendry ony compiled 772 century breaks? However I do know from personal experiance that gets some of its information from Wikipedia because mistakes here have been replicated there, which is ultimately why we have policies such as WP:BLPSPS and WP:RS. Betty Logan (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you listening at all ?. I'm saying that's what happened as that is the figure that matches. BBC statisticians are listed after every event as Rolf Kalb, David Hendon and Ron Florax. Two of them work for Eurosport and the other is Cuetracker.Net it's not not fault if the BEEB uses two sets of numbers. Adam from snookerinfo.webs does not use Wikipedia at all and does not make mistakes he uses live scoring and liaises with Rolf Kalb referencing match sheets and other statisticians to make sure his figures are correct. I know him but you know better than me (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


Who put this stupid picture? Scrape that away!