Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Snooker (Rated 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.


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 ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  00:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

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 and the one at Now, I have seen errors made here at Wikipedia propagated to so it seems to be the case that 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)
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)
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 ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  10:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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 ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  14:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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 ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  16:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  18:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
New complaint about CueTracker accuracy: [1].  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  16:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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 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)
    Hi, I'm Ron, the guy who runs CueTracker. There are a lot of random incorrect assumptions being made by you about the site, its contents and sources in these discussions, a lot of which are misled and/or baseless. I have never been contacted by anybody writing for Wikipedia to discuss this. I think CueTracker is a valuable, reliable source, and that no other source comes close to matching it, especially considering the lack of official sources. If you wish to discuss this further you can contact me via the website or Twitter. (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    What incorrect assumptions am I making about the site? What is your explanation for having Hendry on three centuries less than just about every other source, including World Snooker and the BBC? I agree that Cuetracker is a useful site but it fails WP:Reliable source criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

World champs category[edit]

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

Infobox_snooker_player now supports |honorary_suffix=[edit]

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 ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  06:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC) has a list, which may or may not be complete. Nigej (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Not complete, since it doesn't include Joe and Fred Davis Nigej (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Cliff Thorburn Nigej (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Walter Lindrum, Clark McConachy Nigej (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Eddie Charlton Nigej (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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 ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  20:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

High break field in infoboxes[edit]

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)

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)
If it's kept, it should be done with {{unbulleted list}}. I've been cleaning up after this well-meaning but messy anon [2], 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 ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  00:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
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 ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  18:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
Just regarding points above, the edits on line breaks are continuing even on articles previously reverted, such as at Dave Harold [3]. 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 [4]. Why are inline citations being removed? Andygray110 (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
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)

Nicknames again[edit]

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 ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  21:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

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)
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)

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

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[edit]

Just read this article on the very respectable BBC: . Got to the end and found "All stats courtesy of", one of our blacklisted sites. You've got to laugh, haven't you. Nigej (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The BBC article states that O'Sullivan has made "a record 906 centuries in his career", but yet 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)
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)
Correction: Ronnie got 2 in the first round of the UK hence the 900 to 902. Nigej (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Missing article: World Snooker Federation[edit]

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 ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  11:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Alan McManus[edit]

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)

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)

Category:World champions in snooker[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
I agree that Winners of the Six-red World Championship is better. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)

Snooker season articles – tiny table fonts[edit]

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 ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  02:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

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)
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)

Career finals: Senior event section[edit]

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)

  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          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)
          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)

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

  • 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)

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

On reflection, perhaps best to leave as is. There are a lot of career final sections already and I don't want to flood the contents section with too many. If the seniors tour expands in future this could perhaps be re-visited, perhaps with colour-coding within the non-ranking section. Andygray110 (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Is cuetracker blacklisted for adding tournament wins ?[edit]

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

If Cuetracker is the only source for an event (that is it is ommitted from the Chris Turner Snooker Archive, and the Cuesport Book of Professional Snooker) and no record of the event can be found in Google news archives then I would question our reliance on Cuetracker alone for that event. It may be correct, but if we cannot corroborate the information we cannot be sure. Please read WP:SPS for further guidance on the use of self-published sources. They should only be used with care and if the person behind them has a credible background in either snooker or sport journalism. If you are seeking information about a specific event perhaps you could list it here so we have something specific to go on. So far I have not come across any cases where Cuetracker is not replaceable. Betty Logan (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

But betty that is your opinion. Steve Davis won the European Masters League in 1991. It is only found on Chris Turner did have lots of events missing from his site he did not cover everything. that does not mean it should be ommitted from Wikipedia. Fair enough cuetracker has problems with century breaks, but not with tournament finals (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The European Masters League is listed in the Cuesport Book of Professional Snooker. I will type in the results here tomorrow and supply you with a page reference that you can use. Betty Logan (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, I have just cross-referenced all the results at with those listed in the Cuesport Book of Professional Snooker. Cuetracker is completely correct for these results so I suggest you just copy them over and use the book as a reference. Here is the full citation for the results: <ref>{{cite book |first=Eric |last=Hayton |title=The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker |year=2004 |publisher=Rose Villa Publications |isbn=095485490X |page=160}}</ref> Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there any need to reference the book at all if is right in fairness ?. (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

We can't add Cuetracker as a source because it is blacklisted. If we un-blacklist Cuetracker then it will continue being abused as a source for erroneous stats, so it's Hobson's choice. To be fair to Cuetracker I have never personally come across incorrect results (although I amware Nigej has) and don't actually object to its use in this regard, but there is no way to allow its use for results and stop it being used for century counts and prize money, which is basically where most of the errors occur. Betty Logan (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I know what you mean about century breaks, money I haven't looked into yet. So don't know as I said finals and tournaments should be accurate ?. Is it just him and prosnookerblog blacklisted ?. (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Who or what other sources are blacklisted?. Regards (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Cuetracker, Prosnooker Blog and are blacklisted. I don't generally have a problem with Cuetracker as a source for tournament results but rather its proliferation as a stat "generator" i.e. century breaks, prize money etc. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
And that's actually fine, per WP:NOTNEWS. It's not WP's job to regurgitate primary sources like these to provide up-to-the-moment tournament. Until results have been reported in non-self-published and non-WP:UGC sources that are reputably published, WP has not business including the alleged info.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  14:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for your project?[edit]

Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.

Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

History of snooker[edit]

Hi all, had someone edit the Snooker article, claiming the first ever match was in Jaipur, and referenced the Hsistory of Snooker article. I've reverted it as unreferenced, but the History of Snooker article is in a right state. No references at all. I'm not really too clued in about the history of snooker, or the references, but I wonder if anyone could take a look? Lee Vilenski(talk) 18:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Snooker season 2017/2018 map image[edit]

Hi all, I have added an image (map of tour countries) to the above article. I have placed it in the infobox but I'm aware that this may not be the place for it. Please feel free to move outside the box if this is against consensus. Andygray110 (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Lynette Horsburgh AfD[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynette Horsburgh.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Result tables in tournament articles[edit]

In the last year or two sponsors have been added into tournament result tables, and rowspans have also been added in radically altering the structure of the tables from their well established format. As an example, the table at UK Championship went from this to [5]. I have reservations about the new layout as I explain at Talk:UK_Championship#Sponsors_in_the_table. If the snooker project thinks this is a positive direction for the tournament articles then fair enough, but these are radical changes which as far as I can tell have never been discussed so I would like to establish the project position on this. Betty Logan (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree it appears to be excessive. I don't think it's necessary to include the sponsor names in this field and I agree on the visual aspect, it looks unwieldy. I think the individual article page alone is a suitable place to mention the sponsor. Having it too many places such as you've highlighted above borders on infringing aspects of WP:PROMOTION. Andygray110 (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
While I agree the tables look a bit excessive, if you compare the pages to World Matchplay (darts) and PDC World Darts Championship they also include sponsors and the venues. I think at the very least we should have the venues in the tables. Snooker also has tournaments that come and go, similar to darts, so would be helpful to someone that only wants to look at the main tournament page and not go through all the individual tournament pages. - Nick C (t·c) 20:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why the darts articles should be held as a standard for the snooker articles when the snooker articles already have their own long-standing standard. The original layout included the venues anyway, so this is really just about sponsors and rowspans. As Andygray points out adding the sponsors to the tables could be seen as infringing WP:PROMOTION. The sponsor is important in the context of the tournament, but arguably not in the context of the history of the tournament. These are primarily results tables so all that is really required are the names of the finalists, the scores and the dates/seasons. I don't really object to the venues because even though they aren't strictly warranted these articles have traditionally included them. Even if there were a consensus to include the sponsors I don't see why the single-row format could not be retained as it was before to keep the layout clean. Betty Logan (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nigej and SMcCandlish: As perhaps the only two other active members of the snooker project do you have a preference either way? Betty Logan (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
    Really? Where'd everyone go? I'm more of a pool and carom guy! Heh.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  21:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it's a change for the worse, both as to the inclusion of the sponsorship trivia, and the WP:MOSACCESS-killing rowspan stuff, which also – even for fully-sighted editors – makes the tables an order of magnitude more difficult to edit without breaking them.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  21:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not keen on adding the sponsors to the table. No one remembers the sponsor anyway. If we need anything on the page I would suggest just a list somewhere: "Sponsors: 1977: Super Crystalate, 1978-85 Coral, ..." or similar. Nigej (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I’m happy as long as the venues stay in the table. As Nigej said, if we have a separate table somewhere on the tournament main page with the sponsors, it will suffice. - Nick C (t·c) 10:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Cliff Thorburn (titles)[edit]

Hi all. Just drawing to general interest a topic here at Cliff Thorburn's talk page. Some of the titles in the article here (those showing no opponent) can only be sourced to Cliff Thorburn's official website, in particular this link: [6]. I can't corroborate these with any other secondary sources, including the ones we normally use such as Chris Turner's Archive, Cuesport Book of Professional Snooker etc. Another user insists these should be included and while I'm not totally opposed, I just wonder if this particular site falls under WP:PRIMARY and if so should these titles be included. Any opinions? Andygray110 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Can somebody create a page for Harvey Chandler please ?.[edit]

I have asked a few moderators on here but nobody has created it yet. His DOB is April 19th 1995, 22yo. Once the page is created i can add personal info. Will someone let me know when it is added please ?. Regards (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Is this player notable enough to require a page of his own? Doing a web search on him all I found was him appearing at the Paul Hunter Classic and winning the EBSA European Championship, but that probably wouldn't be enough to meet the requirements of WP:Notability (sports), especially if he hasn't yet turned professional. For example, see the reasons given here for the deletion of Daniel Ward: [7]. My guess is if the page was created it would be a straightforward nomination for deletion. Andygray110 (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Well he just won the European Championship Mens amateur event to earn a two year pro card for next season. So yeah id say he has done enough to requie a page of his own. What is the difference in creating now or in four months time ? . Regards (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Lots. Most likely would get a lot of arguments on an AfD regarding WP:TOOSOON. If there are independent news articles that talk about in depth, he may be acceptable Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Really i don't think it is a big deal ! (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL doesn't agree with you. Come back in four months. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with the above. Playing on the pro tour is notable, winning a place on it is not. It looks like a formality that an article will be created in due course but it is not necessary to jump the gun. Betty Logan (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Expanding. The reason why we have CRYSTAL is because 1) there's nothing to say he won't get religion, fall in love with someone who lives on a remote island, break his cue arm in 8 places, be run over by a bus or be offered a £150K a year job, all of which could prevent him from ever taking up his place on the tour 2) until such time as he actually is included in the draw of a major tournament or passes WP:GNG, he's not actually notable yet, so we shouldn't include him even if we know for sure he's going be safe, well and committed to snooker for the next four months. Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I was challenging your viewpoint! I agree with it—the new season will kick off in 4–5 months and once this player starts appearing in draws as a red link the creation of the article becomes a no-brainer. Betty Logan (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
No! Of course not. I was just trying to be [more] helpful to the IP editor. Our ways of doing things aren't easy for a newcomer to understand. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm a huge fan of snooker but let's wait until we don't have to face a time-wasting AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Dweller who said i am a newcomer or were you just being condescending ?. You know nothing about me or how long i have been on here. I hope you find religion on a remote island (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Your edit history suggests that you hadn't been here, would be my suggestion. I doubt anyone was trying to be condecending see WP:BITE. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

No i don't see i have edited on here for years. The comments were condescending imo ok (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to unregistered users it is difficult to know how experienced that person is. They could have been on Wikipedia for 10 years or 10 days, there is no way of knowing. I am sure Dweller didn't mean anything by it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
There are hardly any edits from your IP address, but more than that, the arguments made you appear to be a newcomer. I'm sorry if I took the wrong impression from those two pieces of evidence, I was trying to be helpful, rather than conduct a forensic investigation. If you'd prefer that people interact with you on the basis of your proper editing history, feel free to register an account. It takes about two minutes and is free of charge. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW a page was created for Simon Lichtenberg so what is the problem here ?. (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

That article shouldn't been created either! If it ends up at AfD it will more than likely go. Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Does it really matter ? At the end of the day who cares (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Betty as a matter of interest why couldn't you open a seniors masters page ?. You are deleting edits snd involved in everything else on here ?. Even speaking out for other people ?. Just curious (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Can someone create a page for "The Seniors Masters" please[edit]

The draw has been made and i will add it. Regards (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone do this then and i will add the draw ?. (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Historically, There has not been a Masters Seniors article. All articles need to pass WP:GNG before they are made, or a version of this. If the article has good sourcing, then it's fine to create. What sources have you got? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a new event being held in April it is on the 2017/2018 Snooker Season calendar. Part of the World Seniors Tour. I just want someone to create the page and ill do the rest. (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you create an article at Articles for creation. It's specifically designed for new articles like this. I'm a reviewer, so I'll put it through if it's notable. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I dont want to submit anything i just want a tournament page to be created that is all (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

that isn't how it works. See the topic above. Anyone can add a draw to a page. But, the subject needs to meet WP:GNG. Why not submit the topic to AfC?, or sign up, and gain autoconfirmed status so you can create pages yourself? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

AfD on Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018[edit]

An AfD has begun on this topic here. It has largely followed on from a discussion at Talk:2018 World Snooker Championship and an edit war which has caused the 2018 article to be locked down for 24 hours. Andygray110 (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Player Statistics in World Championship articles[edit]

Hi All, it's that time of year, when the World Championships are with us, but I wanted to confirm that what I was doing was correct, and had the backing of the WikiProject. Recently, the latest two world championship articles have featured "Player Statistics" in the articles, noting the following items: Whitewashes, final frame deciders, oldest and youngest competitors, "Gap between appearance" and a "representation by country" table. These things all seem to be things that are already stated in the article (With the age of competitors being the only thing that is missed out... But if it were important, it could be mentioned in prose, or fitted into the infobox...)

I've removed a lot of this information from the articles (As well as remove a lot of bullet point lists, and replaced with prose), is this ok? I wouldn't want to remove information that is warranted, but it all seems superfluous and suitable for a wikia. The World Championships should be our best articles, but they seem to be the target of trivia. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The section seems to have started for the 2015 World Snooker Championship and grown since. We don't to have such a section for any other tournaments (I think). Some iof the information is duplicated anyway (list of debutants), some is pure trivia and some can be usefully added higher up in prose form. Should be a relatively simple task to remove it. BTW I've no idea what a wikia is. Nigej (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikia being a regular wiki, outside of Wikipedia. My mistake. I'll go through and remove if everyone agrees. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Update - I've done some work on the articles working back to 2015. Mostly with prose, (I can't stand bullet lists), and removed this information. if there is enough warranting for particular information to be included, I can re-add. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Can someone remove the Rhys from Jamie Clarke's name please.[edit]

Jamie has now gone professional he does not use the name Rhys. Can someone remove it please ?. World Snooker names him as Jamie Clarke as does the EBSA as he won their playoff to qualify for the main tour.His twitter name is Jamie Clarke and finally Hermund at contacted him and he wants to be known as Jamie is removing the name Rhys. Can we do the same please ?. Regards (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Jamie Clarke (snooker player) is already available as a redirect to Jamie Rhys Clarke. If you want to make Jamie Clarke (snooker player) the main page for him this would required a WP:Requested Move. Nigej (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

i just want the rhys removed from the page is that ok ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The above is how that would be done. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

why can't someone just remove it like Sunny Akani's page. is it that big a deal ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Sunny Akani for the requested move of him from Akani Songsermsawad. Nigej (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

i have never done this before i dont even know how to request a move ?/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, lots of reasons. The article Jamie Clarke already exists, as a disambiguation page, as there are lots of Jamie Clarkes on Wikipedia. So, the only suitable place is Jamie Clarke (snooker player). However, as stated above, this already exists as well as a redirect, so to move the article, you need to put in a requested move request. You can do this just as much as me, or anyone else.
Personally, when I searched for both names, the current article title seemed to be more of the WP:COMMONNAME. Please click on the link provided for WP:Requested Moves to find out how this is done Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
It would be simpler to leave the article where it is per WP:NATURALDIS. We can't move the article to Jamie Clarke and I don't see what there is to gain in moving it to Jamie Clarke (snooker player) if we already have a perfectly serviceable title. Betty Logan (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed the article uses "Jamie Clarke" mostly, it's just the title that's got the Rhys in it. We are sometimes using [[Jamie Rhys Clarke|Jamie Clarke]] and sometimes [[Jamie Clarke (snooker player)|Jamie Clarke]] which is mildly confusing perhaps. Nigej (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

so can we remove the rhys name from the main article then ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

If you are referring to the article name, then the answer is NO (see above). There are many people in the world called Jamie Clarke so it is not possible to use that for the snooker player. The alternatives are Jamie Clarke (snooker player) or Jamie Rhys Clarke. Nigej (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we use Jamie Clarke snooker player then it makes more sense in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

We seem to be going around in circles here. Read the above. This would require a WP:Requested Move. Some have already commented above that they prefer the existing article name, so the requested move may not succeed. You can try if you like. Nigej (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

i already said i never used that before so i would not even know how to log it ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason it should be moved Betty is because Rhys is not and should not be in his name. His name is Jamie Clarke. So the page should be Jamie Clarke (snooker player) (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Start rankings[edit]

In Snooker world rankings 2016/2017 and Snooker world ranking points 2016/2017, the start rankings are identical to the final rankings of Snooker world rankings 2015/2016 and the rankings of the relegated players are skipped. For example Stuart Carrington have a start ranking 64, the next player is Alfie Burden ranked 75 and then Martin O'Donnell ranked 77. However, in Snooker world rankings 2017/2018 and Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 only existing plays are counted, no rankings are skipped and the start rankings are consecutive. Which convention is correct? Also, which one should be put on a player's page? In Itaro Santos, the first convention is used. But in Hamza Akbar, the second convention is used (If it follows Snooker world rankings 2016/2017 then the start ranking of 2016/17 should be 102 in stead of 81).--QBear (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  • The rankings should match whatever World Snooker says they are. World Snooker re-ranks after the world championship and a player's rank will determine tour survival. Once some players have been relegated and others promoted the players are re-ranked once more to determine the seedings for the first events of the season, and these are denoted the "start rankings" by World Snooker. Let's take the above players as examples:
Name 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018
Start End Ref Start End Ref Start End Ref
Stuart Carrington 64 [1] 64 46 [2] 46 [3]
Alfie Burden 75 [1] 65 61 [2] 60 [3]
Itaro Santos 124 [1] 93 127 [2] n/a [3]
Hamza Akbar 102 [1] 81 112 [2] NEW [3]


These are the official rankings as published by World Snooker. If you check the references you will see they also include the season "start" rank on each list so a player's progress can be tracked throughout the season. In the case of Stuart Carrington his start rank matches his end rank because he is always in the top 64. In the case of Alfie Burden I am confused by this rank of #77; that would seem to be incorrect because according to the sources he finishes 2015/2016 ranked #75, is re-ranked to #65 at the start of 2016/2017, finishes 2016/2017 ranked #61, and is re-ranked to #60 at the start of this season (the slight change in rank was due to World Snooker dropping the 2015 Riga Open points. According to World Snooker's own published rankings both Itaro Santos and Hamza Akbar achieved top rankings of #93 and #81. I appreciate the method by which they achieved these rankings (the players above them being cut) is pretty ludicrous, but ultimately this is what their rankings were according to World Snooker. Any article on Wikipedia that does not reflect this needs to be corrected. Betty Logan (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your answer. I also found some inconsistency on how World Snooker made the starting rankings. In season 2015/16, the start rankings were just the final rankings of 2014/15 without re-ranking them [8]. They have adopted a new method since season 2016/17.--QBear (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
    If I recall correctly players not on the tour that still held professional membership used to retain their ranking, certainly when the points based system was in use. Obviously if players retained their ranking regardless of being on the tour then they wouldn't have been re-ranked. The older system made more sense IMO because at least you had consistency between seasons. Logic has never been a World Snooker priority though. Betty Logan (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Q School 2018[edit]

Can anyone who have the permission, review Q School 2018 – Event 1, Q School 2018 – Event 2 and Q School 2018 – Event 3? Since they are not detected by search engines. Thank you!--QBear (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject[edit]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.


On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Counter clearance[edit]

I notice in 2018 World Snooker Championship#Final that we have the terms "counter-clearances" and "counter-cleared". This seems to be the first use of the term in Wikipedia and I'm at a loss to know what the term actually means. I'd be grateful if anyone who knows could add the term to Glossary of cue sports terms. Nigej (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be more like a brand new buzzword from commentary teams right now. I doubt I can find a source to agree with this, but it is the process of clearing the table, from zero or next to 0, where the player wins the frame; given that their opponent has already broken down close to the winning line. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Or (from the sounds of it) a clearance where all, or nearly all, the balls were required to win the frame - although you imply it happens immediately after the opponent has made a sizeable break. Nigej (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it would have to be both, as if the player had simply gotten near the winning post, and missed a ball, and the other cleared up, would just be a regular clearance. There's a distinction between a clearance (clearing the table in a break), counter clearance (as above) and total clearance (potting every ball on the table in a break). Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The term should probably be avoided for now per WP:JARGON. It is impossible to write about snooker without using technical terms, but we should at least stick to terms that are familiar to the casual fan. If snooker editors are having to debate their meaning then they don't belong in an article at present. Betty Logan (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree 100%. Nigej (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

When do the new rankings start?[edit] still has the post-World Championship list (130 with points) but has the new list, pre-2018 Riga Masters (97 with points). However, this is called a "seeding" list not a "ranking" one. Does this mean that the first list remains the official "rankings" until after the Riga Masters, and only then do those who dropped off the tour disappear from the rankings? And what list was used for the Riga Masters seedings? All very confusing to me. Nigej (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The players are officially re-ranked at the start of the new season (i.e. before Riga) but World Snooker generally never formally issues a new list at the start of the season. However, each new ranking list includes a "start" column which gives the "re-ranked positions". I appreciate this doesn't make much sense so let me give you an example:
  • Zhang Anda was ranked #78 after the 2017 World Championship: [9] ("current ranking" column).
  • Zhang Anda was ranked #66 after the 2017 Riga Masters (first tournament of the 2017/2018 season: [10]).
  • However, Zhang Anda's "start" rank before the Riga Masters was #67, not #78, according to the post-Riga ranking update ("start ranking" column).
So as you can see, the players have been re-ranked at the start of the season but we had to wait until the post-Riga rankings came out to find out what the "start" rank was. I hope this makes sense. It is pretty complicated but that is World Snooker for you. Betty Logan (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. So for the "Current ranking" on the players page (eg Zhang Anda) we leave it is as it is "(67 (as of 8 May 2018))" and then change it to the post-Riga Masters ranking after that event has finished. Nigej (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I would say that the rankings on the player profiles should at all times match up to the official rankings at, so on that basis Zhang Anda would be ranked #67. The list at is essentially projecting the first update after Riga so it has no official standing at the moment. That said, it is likely that World Snooker have re-seeded for Riga (after removing the relegated players) but the problem is we won't know what the start seedings are until World Snooker issues its first ranking list (after Riga). So in answer to the second part of your question the earliest we will be able to update the rankings is most likely after Riga. Betty Logan (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


How come a load of players have risen 20-30 places (like Jimmy White) yet none have dropped 20-30 places? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Higher players leaving the tour, most likely. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Some of the players outside the top 64 were relegated from the tour meaning that those that stayed on move up to higher rankings. Also, as the editor working on the list it is important to point out that the chart is not finalised and is a work in progress. The table currently uses last seasons finishing positions as start ranks because World Snooker has not issued a new ranking list as yet. The players will re-ranked at the start of the season, and once we get the new ranking list for this season the start ranks will be corrected for the surviving tour players. This is the reason I have left the "under construction" notice at the top of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. Odd that players ranked in the 70s and 80s were relegated when those in the 90s/100s weren't. Or am I misunderstanding? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
More complex than that. Oliver Lines who was 65th after last season with 83,312 points qualified for the tour again but lost all his points, and starts from zero. Many of those further down the list were new to the tour the previous season and had a two-year exemption, so retain their place on the tour and their points. Experts out there: correct me if I'm wrong. Nigej (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The snooker authorities do like their rules to be Byzantine. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Nige is correct. The main cause of all this is that World Snooker operates a 2-year ranking system, and those who have been on the tour for only 1-year are immune from relegation. The upshot is that someone ranked #65 on the tour could lose their place and a player ranked #120 could keep theirs. Obviously those on the tour for two years usually have more points than those on the tour for just a year. It gets even more complicated, because if you lose your place you can enter Q School (snooker) and immediately win your place back, except you start on nil points as if you are a new player. Very different to the first ranking system, which was devised by John Spencer on the back of a fag packet. Betty Logan (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)