Talk:Steve Davis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Steve Davis was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
June 11, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
"Find sources" tools:

Find sources: "Steve Davis" snooker – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
Find sources: "Steve Davis" pool – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
Find sources: "Steve Davis" billiards – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
Find sources: "Steve Davis" poker – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
Find sources: "Steve Davis" BBC – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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) 08:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

World Team Classic match details[edit]

I am offering a fuller explanation here as to why I have reverted this edit by Diariser in response to the discussion at User_talk:SMcCandlish#Steve_Davis. I think it is probably better to continue a content discussion at the article talk page so the record is retained here, rather than in SMcCandlish's talk page archives [10].

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

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

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

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

Steve Davis: Snookerstar DJ[edit]

There's a new short film about Davis's sideline as an electronica DJ, of all things. News/review from BilliardsMovies.com: [11]. He's also apparently been doing a radio show for some time now.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  06:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Professional status[edit]

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