WikiProject iconSnooker Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Snooker, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of snooker on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Ahmed Aly Elsayed edit

Does anyone know why the page for this player is called Ahmed Aly and not his full name? It makes linking a bit non-standard, having to use [[Ahmed Aly|Ahmed Aly Elsayed]] in articles.  Alan  (talk) 08:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He seems to only be referred to as "Ahmed Aly Elsayed", when you remove Wikipedia (and other wikis, blogs, and forums) from search results [1]. So, I moved the article to his proper name.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other issue that this highlights is that many users want to link directly to articles even when there's a redirect already in place. You say we're "having to use [[Ahmed Aly|Ahmed Aly Elsayed]]", but actually [[Ahmed Aly Elsayed]] worked perfectly well (even before the move). See WP:NOPIPE, WP:NOTBROKEN, MOS:NOPIPE. In tournament articles we should be using the name of the player at that time. The fact that the Wikipedia article might be called something different, is not relevant and is sorted out through pipes and redirects. Nigej (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks to SMcCandlish for moving the article.
@Nigej: Understood, and I'll keep that in mind. However, this was an odd one. I use some code that identifies which players need to have a piped link (e.g. [[Mark Allen (snooker player)|Mark Allen]]) and those who don't (e.g. [[Ronnie O'Sullivan]]), and Ahmed Aly Elsayed didn't seem to fit into either category. In fact he might have been the only player whose name and article name were different in this way.  Alan  (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He really isn't the only one. Players change names quite a bit, see someone like Billy Joe Castle had changed their name, we should not pipe to avoid a redirect (for lots of reasons that I won't go into). VE is a bit of a pain, as it does sometimes enforce a piped link, but as a rule, we don't need to do so. It's also worth noting that sometimes we do need to just move articles when the page in question isn't suitable at it's current location. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still on the subject of Ahmed Aly Elsayed, does anyone know for sure what his surname is? It is either "Elsayed" with "Aly" being a middle name, or it's double-barrelled "Aly-Elsayed". I've looked at various sources an can't get a definite answer. In the WST players' list he's under "A" and that's where we have him, but the Woeful Software Team are spectacularly unreliable, since, on their (awful) live scores site, they have him listed as "Ahmed Elsayed". So the question is: should he be moved from "A" to "E"?  Alan  (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, I tend to think if there is a confusion, we should go with third party sources, and WPSBA both list it as a non-hyphonated full last name "Aly Elsayed". AZBilliards and a few other sources just say "Aly" as a last name. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahmed Aly Elsayed's last name? edit

Can someone that's familiar with Egyptian names weigh in here? Some sources ([2][3]) use "Elsayed", and some ([4][5]) use "Aly". Surely the latter can't be right, if anything it would be "Aly Elsayed"? AmethystZhou (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you read #Ahmed Aly Elsayed above. Nigej (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WST have him listed under "A" for "Aly Elsayed" and so have we (so far).  Alan  (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I merged these threads, since it's pointless to WP:TALKFORK.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 

List of cue sports media? edit

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cue sports/Archive 1#List of cue sports media?.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2023–24 snooker world rankings page edit

I want to start working on the 2023-24 ranking page, but unlike the last season, I can't find either the revision dates, or the lists after each revision. Looks like WST uploaded these to their website last season, but not for the current one. And only has the rankings, not the actual points after each revision. Anybody know where to find a good source for this information? AmethystZhou (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are these pdfs on the WST site: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] which give the ranking points after each ranking event. WST/WPBSA used to provide a re-ranking schedule like this [14] but I can't find one for the current season. There is this [15] but it's not got the same level of detail. says "Points from the current season will be removed according to the 2023/24 Re-Ranking Points List" but gives no clue as to where this list is. Nigej (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for these! I'll start working on this. I was wondering the same thing about the re-ranking list, I suppose we can work out points from which tournament was removed based on the points, but we still need a source for that. If only the WST website isn't a shambolic mess... AmethystZhou (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed the "re-ranking" stuff can be worked out from the points lists but it would be nice to have a proper source. Nigej (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created the page with the ranking points, still need to figure out those cut-off dates, though. AmethystZhou (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm assuming that if we work out (Points after ranking event N + Money earned in ranking event N+1 - Points after ranking event N+1) (eg for Trump 799,000 (after Wuhan) + 80,000 (winner in Northern Ireland) - 869,000 (after Northern Ireland) = 10,000) you'll find that it matches events at Snooker world ranking points 2021/2022#Ranking points which will be the ones that were lost at the re-ranking (maybe the 2021 English Open (snooker) in this case, not sure). Would need to be cut/paste into a spreadsheet. All exceptionally complicated. Nigej (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am using an Excel spreadsheet to convert the WST .pdf lists into a Wikipedia-friendly format. The tournament winners lose a lot of points so it's not too hard to figure out the drop-offs. AmethystZhou (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good work. I notice that you've added columns at 2023–24 snooker world rankings for two events where the rankings changed (as they always do after a ranking event) but those new rankings were not used for seeding any tournaments. Previously we haven't included such rankings. also leaves them out. Personally I'd be quite keen to have these included somewhere, since they help to find a player's highest ranking. I suppose one issue is that this table quickly gets way too wide. Not sure what the best approach is. Nigej (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I've hidden the columns for upcoming revision points, and there are a couple more that are not used to seed events. About the table width, I think we can add a single "rank" column to the left, and only have the points to the right, instead of displaying both the rank and points for each revision point. I made one in my sandbox. Perhaps also make the fonts slightly smaller, but I don't know how to apply that to the entire table, without having to add the "style=" attribute everywhere. AmethystZhou (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can replace the opening line of the table with something like {| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center;font-size:90%". 85% is the minimum allowed, per MOS:SMALL, MOS:SMALLFONT, WP:MOS#Formatting issues. Personally I'd prefer a bit the opposite of your sandbox idea, rankings for all events, points for just the first and last; on the basis that the ranking is more interesting than the money. Nigej (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's possible to collapse part of a table (i. e. make the points columns collapsible and hidden by default). But changing the font size works! I must have been using the wrong syntax for the font size. When the entire table is complete, it'll be about two screens wide on a regular desktop monitor. Not too terrible, I suppose... AmethystZhou (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could make it a little bit narrower by removing the "Country" column entirely, and putting in a flagathlete wrapper for each player. Just a thought.  Alan  (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I plan to do that too, I don't think many people would be sorting that table by country... AmethystZhou (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AmethystZhou: Also - take a look at the way this table in Formula1 is arranged, particularly with regard to the horizontal scroll-bar and how one specific column is always visible. I have no idea how that is achieved but it might be useful for you to investigate.  Alan  (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a nice looking table! And yes, wikitables allow fixed rows or columns, like this one in my sandbox. It looks good but the code has a bug where the borders disappear on Firefox, for some reason.. We can definitely borrow the color coding idea from that F1 table, though. Denoting top 16, top 64, etc. could be useful. I'm using an Excel spreadsheet to generate the wikitable code, so it's relatively easy to tweak styles. I'll find some time next week and figure this out. AmethystZhou (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you know if WST is still doing these pdf lists after the website update? Those are very handy for creating the world rankings article and can be easily archived for reference. Now since the website update, I can't find them anywhere, and the old pdf links are all broken. :( AmethystZhou (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
World Snooker have today (23 November) updated the calendar for this season following the cancellation of the Six Red World Championship, with the 2024 World Open dates changing ([16] ([17]PDF Calendar).
World Snooker have also kindly provided a Re-ranking points list as well ([18]Re-raking PDF) Steveflan (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I added these to the ranking and season page. Although the WST page says the Six-red Championship is postponed, not cancelled, but didn't give a date. The page says the same. AmethystZhou (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thor Chuan Leong/Rory Thor edit

I'm just wondering whether we should be moving Thor Chuan Leong to Rory Thor. If he does now prefer the Rory Thor then WP:NAMECHANGES perhaps applies: "we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ("reliable sources") written after the name change." seems to have used Thor Chuan Leong up to the English Open Qualifiers (6-8 Sep 2023) [19] and switched to Rory Thor from the International Championship Qualifiers (18-23 Sep 2023) [20]. WST as usual is quite inconsistent but seems to be using Rory Thor recently. Other sources are also inconsistent. We could just wait and see, perhaps things will be clearly in a few months. Nigej (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we need to be consistent and use one or the other, but not both. Maybe somebody should ask him. He's on facebook apparently, see this. I don't do social media but surely somone in here does.  Alan  (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that for a particular period we should be consistent. I see that we used Rory Thor for 9 events back in 2016 and 2017 but otherwise have used Thor Chuan Leong. You may be right, perhaps we should use Thor Chuan Leong for a little longer. Just seems unsatisfactory that we seem to be using a different name to that given in our sources. Nigej (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I lived and worked in Hong Kong for a couple of years back in the 1980s, and many Chinese people give themselves "nicknames" to make things easier for westerners. But they are just that - nicknames. In some cases the nicknames stick, as in the case of Marco Fu whose real name is Fu Ka-chun. Not sure about Thor yet. I think that, for now at least, we should stick to using his full name.  Alan  (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether it's his real name or not is not really relevant for us. It's what reliable sources use. We use Tiger Woods but whether it's his real name doesn't matter. Nigej (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's a reliable source:  Alan  (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The WPBSA Snooker Scores site also has Thor Chuan Leong ( Steveflan (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They don't. Actually they are calling him "Chuan Leong Thor" which is even sillier.  Alan  (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
His name is similar to Chinese names. My understanding is that players enter competitions on the site and, therefore, put their details in (there are links for forthcoming events to allow you to enter). So I can only assume that under 'Surname' he has input his family name, Thor, and Chuan Leong as his forename. As I say, these are only assumptions - but it would seem to make sense. Steveflan (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everyone (WST, Eurosport & BBC commentators, screens at venues etc.) seem to get Chinese names wrong when it's so easy to get them right. See this thread above timestamp 10:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC). It seems to me that it is disrespectful to the Chinese (and Malaysian) players to get their names wrong and we have a duty, as an encyclopedia, to do our best to get them right.  Alan  (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thor Chuan Leong is not used anywhere by WST, which clearly uses Rory Thor in scoring and has done for a few months now: their player pages like are rarely updated. Other sources we seem to be using to justify keeping it as “Thor Chuan Leong” are slow to update bedause they’re probably not paying attention to the tour, as we also have another reliable source in showing the new name of Rory Thor, which i would say is more accurate than a wpbsa page which is targeted towards amateurs and not the pro tour. Kindly request we use the correct name that he is going by, in articles where this name is used, otherwise we are being misleading to readers. — CitroenLover (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AlH42: above CitroenLover (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CitroenLover: As I said earlier in this thread, I think we need to be consistent and use one or the other, but not both. If you want to go back through all the tournaments he has appeared in and change them to Rory Thor, feel free to do so and I will not object (others might). But just changing the one article would be inconsistent and wrong.  Alan  (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The names that we should use should match the name that was used in a tournament. That means we should report things as they stood at the time: even if it is inconsistent, we have redirects for a reason to account for this potential issue. Therefore, for all tournaments where he was referred to as Rory Thor, that is the name we should use, and for any tournament where he used Thor Chuan Leong, that is what should be used. See Mink Nutcharut, who only used this name when she joined the professional tour, until that point she would be referred to across the wiki as “Nutcharut Wongharuthai” as that was her sporting name. — CitroenLover (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's probably a mistake to change for just one event. However, there's no problem with changing from one style of name to another, if that's what sources are generally doing. See WP:DONOTFIXIT: "There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles.". So if we decide to use Rory Thor from some point, there's no need to change ANY of the earlier ones, indeed that might well be the wrong thing to do. Having said all that, it would perhaps be best to change between seasons, to minimise confusion to our readers. Nigej (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with that approach, to keep consistency within a season seems reasonable.  Alan  (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fwiw, i don’t get much opportunity to browse wikipedia on desktop these days, so the only reason i changed it on one page is just because i saw it on my mobile device. Its not convenient for me to go and change things like that en-masse on a mobile device. That is why i left the comment i did in the edit summary, in the hope an active editor on desktop would be able to make the change necessary. I will check to see when “Rory Thor” started being used and update all pages accordingly [may be difficult if the video footage from this seasons’ matches isn’t available though]. Thanks. CitroenLover (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CitroenLover: I don't think the "video footage" is relevant. Our primary reliable source, for all of its failings, is the WST. We rely upon for a lot of data, and Hermund Årdalen's site is very reliable, but it is after all a fansite, albeit a very good one.
If you want to change all of the instances of Thor Chuan Leong to Rory Thor for the current season then by all means go ahead, but I think the past seasons should be left alone.
On the subject of "confusion to our readers," if you hover over either of the Wikilinks in the previous sentence, you get the same picture of Thor, along with the text: "Thor Chuan Leong, better known on the main tour as Rory Thor, is a Malaysian professional snooker player." I don't see where the confusion arises.  Alan  (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understand that the context of this talkpage post is to "this season", not previous seasons. I meant "watching earlier matches from this season" and seeing when the name change happened, as this is the first season when he's chosen to use this alternative name in the scoring system. It would be very wrong to put into draw templates "Rory Thor" where that name is not used, hence the need to validate when it appeared. Also, please understand that referring to any video footage of matches [often from random youtube videos that are uploaded] is the only way to verify what actually happened in previous tournaments, and is hard to come by because most broadcasters either don't provide a back catalogue of matches [ITV] or they only make it available for 30 days [BBC and Eurosport]. WST also aren't providing historical scoring on their pretty useless scoring site, they only provide data for the current tournament, so video clips are the only verification method for anything thats happened. Thanks. -- CitroenLover (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still don't think that the "video footage" is relevant. If you can't cite it you can't use it. We can only use reliable sources. And we need to be consistent, I think, across the season. So choose one or the other.  Alan  (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tend to agree with AlH42's resistance to "rewriting history". If we start saying that someone named Rory Thor did this-and-that in so-and-so season long before his name change, then people attempting to verify our claims in the sources are going to be confused because the sources will not contain any such name (it's okay if in the transitional period some do and some don't, as long as one does). Redirects exists for a reason and it is entirely sufficient that both names will resolve to the same article (and it would probably move to Rory Thor at some point, if he sticks with that name, and post-name-change sources use it. This is basically the same issue as Kanye West vs Ye (rapper) (most sources have not switched to using "Ye", despite him using it since 2018 or 2021 depending on how you define a publicly declared name-change), with elements of the Caitlyn Jenner vs Bruce Jenner situation, in which Jenner's former name is used with regard to old sporting results, which pre-date the name change. In running sentences in the article prose, we can say things like "Thor Chuan Leong (now known as Rory Thor)" or "Rory Thor (formerly known as Thor Chuan Leong)", as needed; be we should keep tournament tables and such concise. PS: In his own article, the "better known on the main tour as Rory Thor" statement should be qualified with a "since 20xx" date for the name change, to reduce further potential for confusion.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one is saying anything about "rewriting history", so no idea where you're getting that from. The simple fact of the matter is that our articles should refer to Rory Thor when that was his name on the scoring sheets: literally no one is suggesting going back to some random tournament that he played in the 2018-2019 season and changing the draw entries to "Rory Thor" as all scoring records refer to him as Thor Chuan Leong before this season. -- CitroenLover (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And, in any case, he has not changed his name. His name remains Thor Chuan Leong. His nickname is Rory Thor. It is how reliable sources have referred to him, and when they did, that is relevant.  Alan  (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the "nickname" argument is relevant. Tiger Woods is used on Wikipedia because sources use that name. Whether Tiger is a nickname or not, is not the issue here. Same applies to James Wattana. Anyway, these issues often resolve themselves over time, so perhaps best not to make a big issue of it. Nigej (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AlH42: Rory Thor is not a traditional nickname like you seem to think it is. For snooker players that come from Asia [eg Thailand, China, Malaysia etc], their names are often seen as too long and too confusing to say by "Westerners", so they use what we call a "stage name": ie an alternative name, which they call a "nickname". "Rory" is not a nickname like "The Rocket" or "The Wizard of Wishaw". WP:BOLD applies in this situation, and all official sources (since you're making a deal out of "sources" for whatever reason) like WST draw sheets for tournaments this season use Rory Thor as his name. I'd kindly request that you don't edit war over a redirect URL being used in place of a direct links, as my edits are not contravening any wikipedia policy and are arguably more accurate on the pages. Thank you. -- CitroenLover (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm well aware that what you are saying is correct as I worked in the far east for many years. Sorry for undoing your edit as I didn't realise you were doing all tournaments. I have reverted my own edit.  Alan  (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CitroenLover: ...and I just did a couple that you missed. At least we are consistent now.  Alan  (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should qualifying matches count toward tournament highest break? edit

Should high breaks made during qualifying count toward the tournament highest break? For example, the 2018 World Championship infobox says highest break is a 146 by John Higgins, but Liang Wenbo made a 147 in qualifying. Whereas in the 2023 International Championship, the infobox includes both Zhang Anda's 147 in the final and Ryan Day's 147 in qualifying in the highest break. Should we standardize this for all tournaments to either include or not include high breaks made in qualifying? Or alternatively, use whoever that win the high break prize. I'm not sure if there are reliable sources that report the highest break prize winners to verify this, though. AmethystZhou (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has come up before. Really the only reason for the high break in the infobox is that there's a prize associated with it. So the person/break noted should relate to the person who won the prize. See from May 2019. From that date we have been including qualifying matches, before that we didn't (as a general rule, there may be exceptions). As you say, there's often no source that explicitly says who won the high break prize, which is not ideal. Nigej (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly, from the beginning of the 2019–20 season, breaks made during the qualifying rounds became eligible for the highest break prize. Previously, only breaks made during the main stage of tournaments were eligible. This could possibly be made clearer. E.g., instead of saying "highest break" the infobox could say "highest break prize." HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sadly, it's not even as simple as that, as in the world championship there is often a separate highest break prize for that event. It's a bit of a mess. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ronnie wins UK Championship: In the news edit

I nominated the 2023 UK Championship article for Wikipedia:In the news. Still new to editing on Wiki so hopefully I'm doing this correctly! AmethystZhou (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was a nice thought, but as you can see from the reponses there, they're not interested in snooker event coverage like this other than the World Championship win.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AmethystZhou: Well that was a waste of time and effort, good try though. Clearly very few people (other than us in here) even consider snooker to be a sport. That is why Ronnie O'Sullivan will never win SPOTY, and the likes of Ray Reardon will never get a knighthood, even though such honours are handed out like confetti to all other sports, and to many actors and musicians. I would recommend the Amazon documentary about O'Sullivan, which shows what he goes through in order to entertain us. Rant over.  Alan  (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I knew that they only allow the World Championship once a year, but I thought Ronnie winning it for the billionth time and breaking records should be notable? Guess not.. :( AmethystZhou (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry I didn't see it to begin with to add any comments. As an aside, would it be worth a 'Did You Know' nomination with O'Sullivan now being both the youngest and oldest player to win the UK Championship? Personally, I would say that was noteworthy. Steveflan (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not worth bothering. You and I (and others in here) will see it as noteworthy, but nobody else will. See "rant" above.  Alan  (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DYK would have been suitable (if it went 5x). It's not really a ITN thing, I've fought for years for us to retain the one item we have a year (and we often get blocks on that). Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've put a nomination in anyway (you never know 😉). Not sure if I've done it right though (Template:Did you know nominations/2023 UK Championship) Steveflan (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well that was spectacularly unsuccessful. Not really surprising though, and ROS didn't even get a nomination for SPOTY this year.  Alan  (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we've got to accept that it's not as big a sport as some, so getting stuff through WP:ITN is always going to be a struggle. Hits for the UK Championship were good for snooker: [21] daily peak at 90,000 for Ronnie and 45,000 for the 2023 UK article. Interesting that only 15,000 of Ronnie's hits that day were on desktops, mostly mobiles nowadays. FWIW Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker/Popular pages has our top 200 articles. This page is updated monthly, currently showing October numbers. Nigej (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like there's some technicalities about the criteria for DYN that the article didn't fit. But if the article becomes a Good Article then it will be eligible to be nominated for DYN within seven days of that. AmethystZhou (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It certainly was! I have put an additional comment at the end of the nomination and have asked for it to be withdrawn for now - but still believe it is more than notable enough to be included, so am waiting for when the article is promoted to Good Article status (which I believe it will be sooner rather than later). Personally I found the whole DYK process to be frustrating and very bureaucratic (I still don't follow that 5x thing!). I could go on, but feel I will get very frustrated and say something I later regret so I will stop here. Steveflan (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For it to become a GA, someone, preferably a major contributor, needs to nominate it first. The GA process can also be a bit bureaucratic, and can take a while, but most of the reviewers are really helpful. I'd be happy to help a nominator (or nominators) either with the process, or to respond to reviewer comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must be missing something here. Why would it need to be a "GA" before getting a mention in "DYK"? Look at today's nonsense in "DYK":
  • 1 not a "GA"
  • 2 not a "GA"
  • 3 not a "GA" – and so on ...
In fact none of the links in today's DYK have GA status.  Alan  (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See WP:DYKRULES. "At the time of nomination, an article must be considered new, which means it was created, expanded fivefold, or promoted to good article status in the seven days preceding a nomination." So if it's promoted to GA it's can still pass as "new" even if it fails the "created" and "expanded fivefold" parts of the rule. Got to say that I'm in the Steveflan camp, I gave up on it years ago. Wikipedia:In the news/Recent deaths is the only part of the main page that I do get involved in. Nigej (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An absolutely ridiculous set of rules (IMO).  Alan  (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At any rate, we should promote the article for GA, then it will be eligible for the DYN. I think it looks pretty good already, thanks to the contribution from many editors. AmethystZhou (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The DYK ruleset is for recently changed info, so ones that are newly created, expanded fivefold, or reach GA status. I don't mind nominating it for GA, but my contribution is reasonably low. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like the nomination is very easy so I went ahead and nominated the article. I'd really appreciate your help with responding to comments! AmethystZhou (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well done. I've put in my "tuppence-worth" here. I'm not sure if my review is valid, since I was a major contributor to the article. We will see what transpires. The seeding dispute needs to be resolved ASAP though.  Alan  (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...and it's been over a week and nobody else has reviewed it.  Alan  (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well most of the articles we have for GA nominations have been pending for months... Also I think you should be a co-nominator rather than a reviewer! :P AmethystZhou (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're probably right. Do you think I should delete the review?  Alan  (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know, this is the first time I'm nominating an article. @Lee Vilenski @BennyOnTheLoose what do you think? AmethystZhou (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh yeah, you totally shouldn't open the review of an article you aren't doing the review for - it'll stay like that forever. GA reviews are done by a single person and not done by someone who worked on the article. Would you like me to revert the review page? As a new nominator you're right at the top of the to-do pile. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be great, thank you! Can I also add @AlH42 as a co-nominator? AmethystZhou (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AmethystZhou: Not really interested in being a co-nominator. And the seeding numbers dispute still needs to be resolved.
@Lee Vilenski: Please go ahead and delete my review.
 Alan  (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point, I added a comment on that. Also it looks like the previous year pages have the same way of showing the seedings (2022, 2021, 2020, etc.), albeit without clarification next to the brackets. AmethystZhou (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry about that Lee - I didn't know. Yes please revert it.  Alan  (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NOWRAP on sports scores edit

Lee Vilenski has posted a topic here. Please add your comments so that a consensus can be achieved. So far, only SMcCandlish, Michael Bednarek, and myself have bothered to comment.  Alan  (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion, still with very few participating, seems to have come down to the wording of MOS:SCORES.
It is currently worded: "To avoid potential line breaks, {{non breaking en dash}}, or {{nbnd}} for short, can be used between scores, or {{nowrap}} around the entire score construction." (the bolding of "can" is mine.)
Both myself and Lee Vilenski would like it to be changed to: "To avoid potential line breaks, {{non breaking en dash}}, or {{nbnd}} for short, should be used between scores, or {{nowrap}} around the entire score construction."
SMcCandlish would seem to be ambivalent.
EEng has suggested just saying: "Use {{nbnd}} to prevent linebreak."
With so few users in the discussion, we are unlikely to achieve consensus. Please add your opinions to this thread.
 Alan  (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There doesn't seem to be an opposition to doing this, just disagreement about how emphatic to make the wording about it in the guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  13:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which is, pretty much, what I said above. But we need more input to this thread to get a proper consensus, and you seem to be "on the fence."  Alan  (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I "advertised" the discussion also to WT:SPORT since this really has nothing to do with snooker in particular. And I'm not on the fence about MoS addressing this (it already has been for several days now), just using overly prescriptive wording.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe somebody could compile the options into a straw poll, and that would encourage further participation. I have looked at the discussion, but the sentences are all very similar with minor variations. Any of them would work for me, but perhaps there are some good reasons for choosing one over the other? Betty Logan (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Betty Logan: There are good reasons, it's about emphasis. If you use the words "must use" many editors would object to it being too constrictive. If you say "can use" then you're not making a rule at all, just making a suggestion. I think that saying "should use" is a good compromise. Please decide which you think is preferable and add your opinion to the discussion.  Alan  (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I decided to be WP:BOLD and changed MOS:SCORES about 24 hours ago, and nobody seems to have objected so far. I have also added {{nbnd}} to the scores in the 2023 UK Championship article.  Alan  (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newly notability-challenged bios edit

Anthony Davies edit

This one has been tagged with {{Notability}}, so is next on the AfD chopping block. The templater noted that they had "checked the British Newspaper Archive, did not find significant coverage", so this one might be difficult to cite better, unless someone has a stockpile of old snooker magazines and other print materials. As with two other recent AfDs, I would be inclined toward keeping because he was a multiple-time national Welsh amateur champion. National am champions at a notable sport usually turn out notable when sufficient research materials are available.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A quick Google came up with the following: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. Hope this helps.  Alan  (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gerrit bij de Leij edit

Now this one. Might be more challenging; I don't think he's a national or international am. champion.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  13:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Maybe you should have a chat with User:BennyOnTheLoose who seems to be the one adding the tags.  Alan  (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, he's not wrong to add them. And some of these that have already been deleted should have been, but some of them are grey-area cases, and I have a concern also about AfD just going with a rather rote deletion pile-on when online sources in particular are not immediately obvious.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rafał Jewtuch edit

Not a pro at all, but a four-time national am. champion.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

and more.... edit

Reminder that the full list of the project's notability-tagged articles can be found at the cleanup listing, which updates every Tuesday. I'm slowly going through the BLP articles lacking sources, of which there are still about 60, some of which have had a tag to that effect since 2010 or 2011. I've added sources and removed tags in more cases than I've gone on to nominate articles for deletion. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2024 Championship League (invitational) edit

I've just created the article for the 2024 Championship League (invitational) tournament, which starts early in the new year, the group one players having been decided. It needs work.  Alan  (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to let all in here know (Nigej already knows) - the 2024 Championship League (invitational) article was vandalised earlier today by banned user User:DooksFoley147. I reverted his edits and a couple of others he had done. He has also left a message on your talk page @Betty Logan:. Best not to respond. He's using IP addresses and .  Alan  (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Moving Day" edit

Hi all — an editor keeps inserting references to "moving day" in tournament descriptions, along the lines of this, from the 2023 Scottish Open article:

This day (Thursday) of the tournament is known as "moving day" since all of the remaining last 32 matches and all of the last 16 matches are played, meaning that some players have to play twice. Only the eight quarter-finalists remain at the end of "moving day".

I've been following snooker for a long time and have never heard of "moving day" as part of the sport's terminology. It seems, at best, trivia — and in my view should not be repeated across multiple articles in an effort to give it legitimacy. It's not uncommon for a player to play more than one match in a day at a 128-player, week-long event. Hence, I deleted it, but it was quickly restored.

Opinions sought — is "moving day" a legitimate piece of snooker terminology? And, if so, is there any reason to keep repeating the above info in tournament articles—rather than, say, putting in it in the cue sports glossary if people feel it's a legitimate coinage? HurricaneHiggins (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simple answer from me is no. I have never heard it used in snooker before the 2023 Scottish Open. Even then, if I recall correctly, I think one player (or possibly commentator) mentioned in a Eurosport interview that they called it 'moving day' and that was it. It is more prevalent (and relevant) in golf, where the 3rd round (of a 4 round tournament) is termed as 'moving day' as there are fewer players left in due to the field being cut after the second day and is a chance to put yourself in contention of the final round with a good score and 'move up' the leaderboard. It may have been used due to the fact that you could play and win 2 matches on one day and potentially 'move up' the rankings for the World Grand Prix, but don't see any other reason why snooker would have a 'moving day'. Steveflan (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Steveflan. That dovetails with my impression too. It sounds like an awkward effort to import golf terminology into snooker. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HurricaneHiggins: I have never played or watched golf, and have absolutely no interest in golf, so I have definitely not made any sort of "awkward effort" to import anything. This is a valid term, used by commentators and properly referenced. However, if you think it trivial, then remove it in an edit saying so at the time, and not a hidden removal as part of another larger edit as you did earlier today.  Alan  (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was no "hidden removal" — and the inference that I was trying to get away with sneakily deleting something is at odds with the assumption of good faith that we all should be adopting here. I copy edited the entire article, as part of which I deleted material I considered to be fluff, including trimming excessively long quotes and removing references to "moving day" that made no sense to me. It's your insistence on reinserting these references — not only here, but in other articles as well — that is causing an issue, because most of us have never heard of "moving day" in the context of snooker. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine - accepted in good faith. So go ahead and delete it again if you like. Although I think it's a proper term, used over a number of years by respected commentators, and has a valid reference.  Alan  (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with the above. Never heard of it in a snooker sense. To me its the 3rd round of a 4 round golf tournament. Nigej (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's interesting to me that you guys have not heard of this term. It has been used by the Eurosport commentators (including Jimmy White) and in articles on the Eurosport website ever since the current format for the Home Nations tournaments was implemented. It is I who have added this comment to a couple of the Home Nations tournaments this season, properly referenced. However, if you feel, as a group, that my additions are "trivial", then by all means remove them.  Alan  (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably because I've got the volume turned down. Can't get on with "counter-clearance" either: 2023 Masters (snooker)#Quarter-finals "Trump attempted a counter-clearance ...". I'm sure we had a discussion about that years ago but I still don't know what it means. Nigej (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Language changes over time, including within a narrow field. The fact that a couple of sports commentators are trying to import a golf term into snooker jargon is sort of "interesting" from a language-nerd perspective, but until we have more evidence of widespread usage among the snooker player and spectator base, we can't expect readers to understand this term. And trying to "educate" them on its use when it is not part of the regular jargon yet is not an appropriate role for Wikipedia (we don't advocate anything, and do not try to predict the future of English usage, even within a narrow jargon sphere). If there's sufficient usage that can be pinned down in reliable sources we can cite, then it might be reasonable to add a line-item for it in Glossary of cue sport terms, but even that seems a bit iffy. Same with "counter-clearance". Just because a commentator said it a few times doesn't make it non-trivial as a neologistic usage. And it's too easy to claim that a commentator used something in some televised match that is not examinable by any and all at a public URL, or some other permanent source. People could just make up all kinds of claims of "new terminology", cited to sources that are essentially impossible to verify.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand why you and others keep going on about golf. I have never played or watched golf, and have absolutely no interest in golf. This is a proper term, used over a number of years by respected snooker commentators, and has valid references from a reliable source. But if it annoys you so much then go ahead and delete it if you like.  Alan  (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think one issue with this particular term is that it's not obvious what's "moving". Made sense in the golf context, players moving up and down the leaderboard. The only thing that seems to be moving in the snooker "moving day" are the odds. Generally Wikipedia follows, rather than leads, in these situations. We wait for them term to be widely used and widely understood and then we use it. And of course there's always that balance between not using jargon and not treating our readers as complete idiots. Nigej (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go ahead and delete it. I put it in two articles. I have now lost interest in this subject. There are more important issues.  Alan  (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only real term I've found to be suitable for this is the "Judgement Day" that is plastered all over the last day(s) of qualification for the world championships. It's not really a case of "do people use this term", more that it helps to have this reference. Even the one I mentioned I'm not a massive fan of, but at least when you look at the citations they are mostly titled "Judgement Day Live" or equivalent. There's an argument if it is a widespread use it could go in the cue sports glossary, but from my experience this is an American term that has been adopted. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
“Moving day” is a term popularised on eurosport events, namely the home nations, it was something used by Andy Goldstein pretty regularly and is used to describe the fact that at the start of the day there are 32 players but by the end there are only 8, because the entirety of two rounds are played in one single day. I think it is notable and should be included in our articles, because its still part of the home nations scheduling. I also recall it being used for the German Masters [last 16 and quarter finals both played on Friday for the semi finals on Saturday]. — CitroenLover (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're a bit late. The offending sentences and references have already been deleted and this thread is about dead.  Alan  (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made the changes after you said above "Go ahead and delete it." If you, @CitroenLover, or other editors want to continue making the case for including references to "moving day," I for one am more than happy to listen ... but, as things stand, its usage seems nonexistent in snooker outside of a handful of Eurosport commentators. FWIW, commentators sometimes try to popularise a term by acting as if it has widespread usage — as when Dennis Taylor says for the four millionth time "That's what we call a DDK, the dreaded double kiss." However, I have never heard anyone other than Dennis Taylor ever refer to a "DDK," and we would not include an entry for "DDK" in the cue sports glossary just because Dennis Taylor mentions it in commentary. A term should have widespread acceptance (i.e., beyond niche Eurosport usage) before we use it in an encyclopedia. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fwiw, DDK has sometimes been used on the other broadcasters, but sparingly if its relevant to the situation. So far i’ve heard phil yates, dave hendon and neal foulds all use the term, but its just an abbreviation for a longer phrase, and abbreviations are relatively common in most sports. CitroenLover (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HurricaneHiggins: I just removed the last remaining reference to moving day (one you missed) from the 2023 Northern Ireland Open article. Can we please put this discussion to bed now?  Alan  (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, @AlH42. Happy to put this to bed! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tour calendar table change edit

The format of the calendar table for 2023-24 snooker season appears to have been changed arbitrarily. As much as i espouse WP:BOLD, this makes no sense and makes the data harder to read. I also don’t understand the context for writing World Snooker Championship on a page which is clearly about snooker [ie its a season page], and where its often just referenced as “World Championship” in most calendar sources. Im not convinced that this wider change to the table is very useful or improves the article, but if we are changing it here, then this would have to be changed on a lot of season pages for consistency. CitroenLover (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The table is too wide, and needed small font size (85%, which is the smallest allowed per MOS:FONTSIZE) to prevent wrapping. I combined some columns to reduce the width of the table and now the font size is 90%. I don't think references need their own column, for example. What exactly do you think make the edited tables harder to read? I'm not 100% satisfied with the dates, since they are not aligned and look messy. I could revert the dates to two separate column, though I wanted to add the years so it's a bit clearer that they are in chronological order. AmethystZhou (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AmethystZhou I think this format is better than the initial one that prompted me to write this talk page topic. That being said, the cross symbols next to tournament names are meaningless and make it difficult -- for me anyway -- to read them clearly. I think the row highlighting is more than sufficient for this considering there is a legend below the table describing what an orange-filled row means. -- CitroenLover (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However see WP:COLOR: "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method ..." so strictly-speaking a coloured background is not sufficient. Nigej (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, it's also an WP:ACCESS thing - as if the only means of representation that something is special is purely visual, then it's not going to be picked up by screen readers. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like Nigej said, I added the daggers because of MOS:COLOR. AmethystZhou (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably the flag icon under "city" should go. See MOS:FLAG. Generally sports articles have way too many flags. They are allowed to indicate the "sporting nationality" of sportspeople but using a flag for a political entity is not generally a good idea. And perhaps the table still has too much information in it. Do we need the venue? Nigej (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure you all know my opinion about flags. I think all the flags should go. The scores wrap on my screen so maybe you should use {{nbnd}}. I have no idea how to resolve the dates problem, and they all, pretty much, wrap and look horrible on my screen. Other than that I think it's an improvement.  Alan  (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely agree about the nbnd. Breaking the score is pretty much the last place we want it. Nigej (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added {{nbnd}} to the scores and removed the flags from the city column. I have an alternative version in my sandbox without the venue column, and have a combined date column with the year. What do you all think? AmethystZhou (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer the version in your sandbox.  Alan  (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also prefer the additional columns. Quick reminder that we shouldn't be linking headers. See this change for example. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you mean by "linking headers"? AmethystZhou (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the link I provided where I removed this. We shouldn't have wikilinks within headers (for lots of reasons). Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you linked to the wrong edit, but I see now, thanks! AmethystZhou (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you to everyone that has contributed to the discussion! I have made a couple of new mock-ups for the tour calendar table in my sandbox. Removing the venue column (or moving the information to footnotes) allow the table to be much narrower, and the font size to return to 100%. What do you all think? AmethystZhou (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- oh yes, I did. Good spot. Fixed. We don't link them because A. (The MOS says not too), and B. Headers are navigatable. Either use {{Main}}, or write some prose to enclude the link. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS "For technical reasons, section headings should: ... Not contain links" Nigej (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
re the MOS on accessibility: remember that these are guidelines, not rules that must be followed exactly as written without question. There are better ways of meeting accessibility requirements without the use of symbols that rather interrupt the flow of text and stand out too obviously.
Personally, a column which just uses tooltips for the abbreviations of WR and NR [world ranking and non-ranking] would be a better way of explaining that it is a non-ranking event, than a cross symbol that looks extremely out of place and doesn't objectively mean anything unless you look at a legend table, whereas just putting an abbreviation is much more immediately obvious about the ranking status oof the event. The alternative is that we do not display the table in calendar order and separately list ranking and non-ranking events so that no additional columns are required.
Two additional points:
1. Do editors intend to replicate this format on every single snooker season article? If not, then we should revert to the previous format until such a time that consistency would be achieved on the pages.
2. If text wrapping is a problem, consider widening the table size so it fills more space. This is a never-ending battle anyway because setting specific widths assumes that everyone browses the Wikipedia on a desktop device, when arguably the trend is towards a lot of people finding information on-the-go on mobile devices.
Thanks. -- CitroenLover (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree about the "guideline" aspect but we need to be aware of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I like the WR/NR idea, although personally I'd go for R/NR as being clearer. Nigej (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CitroenLover: Your suggesstion of having separate tables for ranking and non-ranking tournaments has some merit, and would certainly solve the accessibility issue. On your additional point 1: I disagree. If a modification makes an improvement that is agreed by consensus, and an editor is prepared to do the work to similarly improve previous articles (as I did recently by removing the brackets from all the Shoot-Out tournaments), then we should applaud AmethystZhou's efforts, not revert them. On your additional point 2: For me, wrapping is only a problem for the scores (already fixed), and the dates (apparently in progress).  Alan  (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been asking for the Tour calendar to be split into ranking and non-ranking for years. It is - indeed - the best solution. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AlH42 as much as the contribution from AmethystZhou is appreciated and welcomed, consistency is more important: if no editor intends to format all season articles in the exact same way, then it needs to be reverted, if anything to preserve the consistency of all previous articles. It would look incredibly silly if one page uses a wildly different format to every other page, as that would introduce edit wars from users trying to put the page back to the old format.
@Nigej R/NR works too, only benefit to WR is that it means the column width will be identical [to a width of two characters], rather than flexing between one and two chars. —CitroenLover (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can edit the previous pages, it's not too difficult, as long as we settle on a format. I can also automate the process to make it a bit easier for myself :P AmethystZhou (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These unilateral alterations you keep making to table formats need to stop. There are often good reasons for the way things are are. You altered the structure of {{Infobox snooker player}} because you didn't like how it was showing up in Google search results, and added an extra column to UK Championship (which unnecessarily widened the table IMO). Bold edits are one thing, but altering established formats that maintain consistency across snooker articles which are often the result of previous discussions can be disruptive. If you have suggestion for altering the format of an infobox or established table format, then please initiate a discussion and obtain a consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe people agreed on doing it this way years ago, but many aspects can still be improved. I think the infobox causing confusing Google search results is a valid reason to change it. The vast majority of people search from Google, not Wikipedia. I also don't see how a minor change where I added a single word to the parameter: from "ranking" to "ranking wins" is disruptive.
As for the tables, I was trying to change them from the current season tournament pages to a consistent format, but you reverted many of them. I'd love to see discussions on ways to improve these tables, they are the most important part of these pages. As you can see here, we clearly have various opinions on how to format them. The tables being too wide is a common complaint, but people have different opinions on what exactly to include, and in what order (or format). I'd be happy to apply the agreed upon format to all the tournament and season pages, as there are not that many of them. AmethystZhou (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue isn't whether something can be improved—people may agree or disagree on that point—the issue is your approach. As you say yourself, people have different opinions on what to include in tables and in which order, so why not start a discussion here and solicit those opinion? Betty Logan (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CitroenLover: Well it's all moot now since an IP user (2A06:C701:9CFE:3100:F07B:8ADB:44F2:2C8) has, early this morning, reverted pretty much all of AmethystZhou's work!  Alan  (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...which could possibly be classed as vandalism. Should it be reverted?  Alan  (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great... I'm not going to revert that back but it's pretty frustrating to see. AmethystZhou (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm very tempted to revert it, but I don't want to start an edit-war.  Alan  (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have just reverted those edits - mainly because they re-introduced links in section titles, which is not allowed.  Alan  (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I very much disagree that consistency is more important than improvements. We should totally be looking to make the best course for any article. If that is also the best for other articles, that's great. The argument that something has been done before on other articles is one that gets in the way of actually making it better in the present. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lee Vilenski I agree its important to look for new ways to change how things are done. However, like @Betty Logan points out, that should be done through a discussion first, so that people can make a consensus on the format before the edits are actually made. By having a discussion first, compromises are more likely to be reached and the format can be tested in a sandbox: randomly changing the table format without a prior discussion isn't particularly useful and leads more people to argue for the change to be reverted because it wasn't discussed. Thats why I raised this talkpage discussion, because realistically, this discussion should have happened before the edit was made. -- CitroenLover (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That simply isn't how the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle works. No, a wider discussion doesn't need to happen before a change is made. If someone objects, that's when a discussion happens. Continually adding the changes is when the issues occur. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Totally agree Lee. If the improvement is agreed, and someone (probably AmethystZhou) is willing to do the work and modify all the previous seasons to suit, then we have consistency as well.  Alan  (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with that guideline is that it introduces the right for people to just wilfully vandalise articles in the name of "making a change". I agree that if the change is extremely minor, it doesn't warrant a discussion on a talkpage. However, I would argue that if we are going to substantially (and that bit is key for the rest of this comment) change the formatting of a section of an article, and that section is widely used across multiple snooker articles, the discussion should be had first, so that when the change is made, it is not littered in edit wars or constant minor edits when trying to correct things to suit different users. Wikipedia articles are not sandboxes, yet you are suggesting that BRD encourages people to just make random changes that they want to make? Notably, that guideline you're linking says it is "an optional strategy", not something that should be used for every single change people want to make, so I would argue that discussion is more important first in snooker pages, so as to avoid confusing the litany of readers who read these pages daily. -- CitroenLover (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Making a change isn't vandalism. You've conflicted good faith changes with willful vandalism. What you are saying is that if something is not a minor edit, it should be discussed first. That isn't something that you can expect other people to follow. I would argue that discussion is more important first in snooker pages, so as to avoid confusing the litany of readers who read these pages daily. That's some drivel, as if the rest of the articles on the site are somehow not viewed daily.
The answers are simple - no, we don't require people to have a discussion before making changes, and no, we don't require other similar articles to be consistent. From everything you've stated in this thread, any time someone brings up a link you disagree with, you state it's "just a guideline", whether that be ACCESS or BRD.
That being said - what is the actual issue here now? It sounds like there is an agreement that these changes are suitable, and people seem happy enough to make those changes to a wider range of articles. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I totally agree. I think the new format is a big improvement. The only issue remaining for me is the wrapping in the dates columns. This is easily fixed by inserting a non-breaking space in each date, so that you enter, for instance, 24{{nbsp}}Dec instead of 24 Dec. I don't have a problem with wrapping in the other columns. If AmethystZhou is willing to make the same change to all previous seasons, then the consistency problem goes away as well.  Alan  (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...and on the subject of consistency, there is none at the moment. I've just looked back through a few seasons and they are totally inconsistent. Some have one date format and others have a different one. Some tables are sortable while others are not. For the ones that are sortable, some sort on first name, some on second, and others sort on flag nations so that Neil Robertson comes top for Australia! They really don't need to be sortable atall.  Alan  (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AmethystZhou: I've been looking at the dates columns issue and it makes hardly any difference width‍–‍wise whether you have one or two columns as you can see here:
Start Finish
28 Jun 29 Jul
19 Dec 2 Mar
28 Jun ‍–‍ 29 Jul
19 Dec ‍–‍ 2 Mar
In fact the single column version is very slighty narrower so that would seem to be preferable.
Regarding the date format, as I said above, there are various formats used in these tables going back through the seasons. So I think we need to choose a format and stick to it throughout. My preference would be to use "dd/mm" with {{nbsp}}to{{nbsp}} between the dates (to avoid wrapping), which would be a bit narrower again and looks like this:
28/06 to 29/07
19/12 to 02/03
There are other issues you need to be aware of before rolling out any changes to the previous seasons:
  1. Many of these tables are sortable. I don't think they should be. I think they should just be ordered by tournament finish date.
  2. Having the references in the "Score" column might create a problem in some seasons where there are three or more references for an event. Look at 84–85 as an example.
  3. Most seasons are using {{flagicon}} which, in some cases, gives the wrong flag.  Perrie Mans is an example of this (note that having "Enable page previews" switched ON in "Preferences" is the default which most users will have. If a user is not logged in he/she will not be able to switch it off). Changing them all to {{flagathlete}} solves this and gives   Perrie Mans (RSA).
  4. It might be worth considering combining the "Venue" and "City" columns into a single "Venue" column, since many of the locations are not cities (e.g. Telford is a town).
 Alan  (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We shouldn't be merging the score and references tabs for sure. If we are worried about the size of the reference header, we can use Ref.. This is because the reference should cover all of the items in the table, not simply the score. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes sense, except that, for instance, "[23][24][25][26]" is pretty much as wide as "References".  Alan  (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, but you could also just bundle those citations, if you were worried about the size. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice one - I did not know you could do that. I learn something new every day, even at 77!    Alan  (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That might not work, since Help:Citation merging says: "If any of the sources in the bundle is re-used elsewhere in the text, the citation cannot be implemented by using named references..." Looking at 84–85 as an example, pretty much all of the references are named and re-used.    Alan  (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{refn}} is the template I use. It does allow such a thing. See:
[2] Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK - clever. But that's going to take a lot of work in tables like the 84–85 one.  Alan  (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Didn't take long at all: Special:Diff/1192099986. Doing it for all articles might take a bit of time - but there is no rush. Sounds like a decent task to go through them all. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Impressive!    Alan  (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only reservation I have about the single column dates is if you look across different rows they are not aligned to each other (see this for example). Maybe they'll look better if I take out the years and have them center-aligned. I'm definitely not a fan of the "28/06 to 29/07" format, though. In fact, I'm a strong proponent of ISO 8601, but I'll settle with "28 Jun" since that's what most people agree on for snooker articles. And I agree with the four points you listed, thank you for bringing these up! AmethystZhou (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't need the years at all. The infobox at the top of this season says clearly: "Duration 26 June 2023 – 26 May 2024". Putting years in the dates column(s) is just unnecessary repetition. If you use "dd/mm" then alignment is not a problem. If you were going to stick to ISO8601, then you would have to use "mm/dd" or "mmm dd", and I don't like either of those. Remember that we should be trying to reduce the number of columns.  Alan  (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...and you only need to follow ISO8601 if you are going to use the dates for sorting, which we are not doing. On reducing the number of columns, the "Refs" column will have to go back in. See the conversation between Lee Vilenski and myself above. Combining the "Venue" and "City" columns into a single "Venue" column would help though.  Alan  (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AmethystZhou: Looking at last night's mock-ups in your sandbox: Styles 2 and 3 with the venues either missing or in footnotes will not be acceptable to some in here, including myself. Style 1 is fine except for the dates which are wrapping on my screen and look awful. I still think it would be better to use "dd/mm" with {{nbsp}}to{{nbsp}} between the dates. You could add a note about the date format, as many previous seasons have done. Look at 84–85 as an example. If you insist upon using "d mmm" then you will need to use {{nbsp}}{{nbnd}}{{nbsp}} between the dates and put the font size back to 85%.  Alan  (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just added nowrap to the dates. If it's up to me I'd use 2023-12-28 (or 12-28), but looks like all of the dates in infobox, prose, table, and everywhere else in snooker articles are the 28 December 2023 format (I think it's a British English thing?), so I'll stick to that. AmethystZhou (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That looks much better, but the alignment is a bit strange looking. Not all articles use the same date format. Again, look at 84–85. It uses "mm-dd" and has a note stating what format it uses. I don't think it matters much what format you use, as long as it looks OK, conveys the information logically, and is consistent throughout.  Alan  (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added a separate table for "Style 1" with the ISO dates, but I think the first table is better. The ISO format without the year is admittedly a bit confusing to look at, while you can glance at the other one and immediately see the months. AmethystZhou (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tend to agree. However, we should be following MOS:DATEFORMAT. So here's a thought: Since most of the lines in the table wrap anyway (because of the length of the text in the "Venue" column), why not force a break in the "Dates" column using for example 26 Jun –‍<br/>21 Jul .  Alan  (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point about MOS:DATE. I changed the dates to "26{{nbsp}}Jun – 21{{nbsp}}Jul" so it doesn't wrap on wide monitors, but will wrap after the dash for narrower screens (and mobile). I also added a 100% font size example, which IMO is the best one so far. AmethystZhou (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The dates look terrible on my screen (I'm looking at ""Style 1" in your sandbox). It's probably because you've got them centre aligned. I would suggest using the default left alignment for the dates, since you're never going to be able to properly line up the dashes anyway. Maybe that's why many seasons use two columns for the dates.  Alan  (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...and there's very little difference width-wise between using one or two columns. See the little sample tables in my post above (timestamped 11:35, 27 December).  Alan  (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made the dates in the Style 1 tables left-align now. AmethystZhou (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's an improvement. The two column approach should be considered though.  Alan  (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...and 90% might be better.  Alan  (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AmethystZhou: Just to let you know that @Andygray110 has changed the date format in a number of past seasons. See 92–93 as an example. These look quite good, using the two column approach, left aligned. This means that the sorting doesn't work properly of course, but if we are going to remove the sortable option, then this is not a problem.  Alan  (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In case helpful - that season (92-93) is as far as I got. Any season calendar before that currently has the ##-## format for dates. Andygray110 (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, we don't need sorting on these tables at all. I changed the tables in my sandbox to the two column dates, and I think they are pretty close to "finalized". I'll start making the edits to all the pages, if there's no more suggestions on changes. AmethystZhou (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks better, but I still think 90% would be preferable.  Alan  (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Venue/location columns in tournament articles edit

AmethystZhou has unilaterally started adding a second column to tournament articles for locations (which was previously combined with venues in a single column. There are two issues going on here: alterations to established formats without a consensus, and the table formats themselves. I would prefer this discussion to solely focus on the table format. You can see some examples of the alterations here:

There are things I like about the changes, so I will start with those:

  • It establishes some consistency across the tournament articles.
  • It includes three pieces of information which I think should be there: Venue, city and country (although I think the latter is only necessary if played in more than one country).

What I don't like:

  • The second column increases the width of the table, and the information gain is minimal. Much of this information can easily be combined in a single column e.g. "Wembley Conference Centre, London". Do we really need two columns to tell us where the event was held? It's not as though events are awarded to cities or countries. In the case of the Masters, the two clumns took up nearly half the table.
  • I also strongly disagree with how the season column was moved to the end. It introduces rowspans into the middle of the table which breaks up the continuity of the row and creates a box effect. If a table can be formatted so that rowspans come either at the start or at the end, that is better IMO. Not only does it look better from an aesthetic POV, but it makes the rows easier to follow on small displays.

If editors prefer the changes AmethystZhou has made then that is fine, but table formats should be decided by the snooker project as whole. Betty Logan (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I take the last point about the rowspan. Having to jump across the sparse venue/city columns to find the corresponding season is not the best. Tend to agree about the first point too. Do we need an extra column for this? I'm wondering whether a separate table for the venues might be in order. See eg Australian Open (golf)#Winners. Give minimal detail in the results table eg Alexandra Palace and give the other details (eg city) in a separate table, "Venues" in this example. Nigej (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't much like the idea of a separate table for venues. But having a single column would, I think, be preferable. How about: either (1) listing the venues, each with a tooltip for the town/city; or (2) listing the towns/cities, each with a tooltip for the venue. Probably better to use footnotes ({{efn}}) instead of tooltips, since they can be named and re-used.  Alan  (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...and the Championship League table used to look like this using footnotes.  Alan  (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the cities with footnotes. The venues often have long names and if they are not used for more than one season (one row) then the table will get very wide. AmethystZhou (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AmethystZhou: Well—that being the case—if you have no objection, I'll put them back in. After all, it was you who took them out.  Alan  (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem! Although I'll probably make some small tweaks later if we can reach a consensus on a consistent format for these tables. AmethystZhou (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done that - but remember that the Championship League is completely different to all other tournaments.  Alan  (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought having the seasons at the end is how these tables always are? (see this page back in 2021 for example) An alternative could be to have season in the first column, and remove the "year" column. Instead, link the score to the year page. I made a couple of mock ups in my sandbox: (1) with season and year columns and (2) season column only with years linked to the scores. I also moved the scores between the winners and runner-ups. AmethystZhou (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is important to retain both the year and the season in the table, since they are both relevant i.e. you win the 2023 British Open for example, but it's not clear from the year alone which season that is. I am also not a fan of sticking important information in the footnotes. I am not making a case for removing information from the table, I just don't think the formatting you chose was optimal. This table is perfectly functional; it includes the venue and location in a single column and by keeping the season before the venue column does not break the continuity of the row. The season column could go anywhere in the table, provided it is before the row-spanning columns—it probably makes more sense to position it next to the year in all fairness if we aim to be logical. The columns should be ordered in such a way that it minimises the breaks in continuity of the row (and by the same token we shouldn't be asking them to click on footnotes). It is important to not create a solution that is a looking for a problem. We just need to be consistent about which information we include, and the ordering of the columns. Betty Logan (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I made the changes to many of the tournament pages some of them did have the venues listed (for example) so I thought maybe the venues are useful information that should be added to all of these tables. But I agree with the points on them making the table too wide, also agreed on not listing "countries" for tournaments that are obviously not moving across countries like the UK Championship. See my reply to Nigej with some mock ups, what do you think about those approaches? AmethystZhou (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The one with the year column is closest to where we need to be, but I disagree with relegating the venues to footnotes. We are inconveniencing the reader making them click on footnotes. The venue and city should both be in the table, but just in a single column. The country is unnecessary unless the event is played in multiple countries:
Season Year Winner Score Runner-up Venue
2016/17 2016   Liang Wenbo (CHN) 9–6   Judd Trump (ENG) EventCity, Manchester
2017/18 2017   Ronnie O'Sullivan (ENG) 9–2   Kyren Wilson (ENG) Barnsley Metrodome, Barnsley
2018/19 2018   Stuart Bingham (ENG) 9–7   Mark Davis (ENG) K2 Leisure Centre, Crawley
2019/20 2019   Mark Selby (ENG) 9–1   David Gilbert (ENG)
2020/21 2020   Judd Trump (ENG) 9–8   Neil Robertson (AUS) Marshall Arena, Milton Keynes
2021/22 2021   Neil Robertson (AUS) 9–8   John Higgins (SCO)
2022/23 2022   Mark Selby (ENG) 9–6   Luca Brecel (BEL) Brentwood Centre, Brentwood
2023/24 2023   Judd Trump (ENG) 9–7   Zhang Anda (CHN)
Betty Logan (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Betty Logan: I disagree with you about the footnotes. The "reader" doesn't need to click anything, just hover - or look at the notes list. I think it's an elegant solution, and works very well in the Championship League. BTW - I just removed the references from your sample table above, since they looked like they were a response to my post about Mark Allen below.  Alan  (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those are actually placeholder references I added to the original table in my sandbox to show where they would go. I didn't bother with filling in the proper details so they showed up as reference errors.. :P AmethystZhou (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hovering over the footnotes doesn't bring them up for everybody, Alan, it depends on your browser. Secondly, if you are indeed interested in the venue information it is not convenient to have to hover over every footnote just to see where an even is held. Footnotes are a barrier between the reader and the information. They should only be used for providing information that the reader doesn't really need to look up, but is available should they wish to (e.g. references, clarifications etc). Betty Logan (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Betty Logan: Your point about different browsers is well taken. But how important is the venue/town/city information anyway? I would have thought that the vast majority of readers of these tables are mostly interested in who won and lost, and what was the score. The venue information seems to me to be of secondary importance, but it is the main cause of problems with table widths and text wrapping. Maybe we should revisit Nigej's suggestion, from earlier in this thread, about having a separate table for venues, for those readers who are interested.  Alan  (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Text-wrapping is an issue that can be easily avoided. As for the table widths, people read these articles on a myriad of resolutions, ranging from mobile displays to desktop computers with 20 inch monitors. We are doomed to fail if we try to satisfy everybody. If the table goes off the side of the screen and you have to scroll across, this isn't actually a problem in itself (from my own personal perspective) provided the table is designed with row continuity in mind so readers can follow the rows across. Betty Logan (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You say that we "are doomed to fail if we try to satisfy everybody." That is absolutely correct. But you are against the footnotes solution because some browsers might require a "click" for what is, at best, information of secondary importance that takes up a lot of space.  Alan  (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A separate table for venues is a good idea, or maybe a partially collapsible table with the extra columns default to hidden. AmethystZhou (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see what you mean with the problem of having the year column after the venue (which often spans multiple rows) and I agree with that. It looks a bit awkward having both season and year columns next to each other, but I don't know if there's a better solution. I don't quite like the alternative in my sandbox where the year is linked to the scores, it's not immediately obvious to the reader. I would still suggest adding the country though. Most readers outside of the UK would have no idea where's Barsley or Milton Keynes. Perhaps this table is a good solution, with a note in the column header clarifying that they are all in England. AmethystZhou (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not keen on the fact we have differing winner table formats across different ranking events (see difference between Championship League and UK Championship). Personally I prefer the ranking/non-ranking sub-heading structure in the UK article as it places less emphasis on colour being the dividing factor between ranking and non-ranking (and therefore aligns better with COLOUR). On the columns point, anything that reduces the number of them works better as it stays closer to the aims of MOSTABLES. On a wider note on calendars there are a lot of formatting changes being made but these aren't being applied consistently across seasons - 2023–24 looks completely different from 2022–23. IMO better to build consensus on these visual changes first otherwise it becomes a breeding ground for edit warring (again). Andygray110 (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andygray110: The Championship League is different to all other tournaments because, since 2020, we have had both a ranking and a non-ranking event each season. So trying to make it the same as the UK Championship would not be practical. If you click on the "Date" header to sort the table by date, you will see what I mean. I agree, though, that all the others should be broadly similar. On your point about the season calendars, please look at this discussion above.  Alan  (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AlH42: I get that it's different, but it was broadly similar before (per this version earlier in the year). But likely I'm late to the party and this has been discussed before. Noted on the calendar discussion as well, thanks.
Overall, my main hope is consistency across articles re the changes being discussed is applied (to the extent possible) and not left with one outlier looking different from the others. Andygray110 (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andygray110: Consistency is not paramount. See Lee Vilenski's comments in the discussion above regarding the season calendars. There will always be "outliers" since snooker tournaments are not all structured in the same way which is why, for example, the Shoot-Out and British Open tournaments no longer have brackets.  Alan  (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AlH42: I understand it's not paramount. But my views are in response to Betty Logan's comment about what the preferences of editors are (not what WP's requirements are). I have seen Lee's comment on consistency and totally agree that improvement is more important than consistency, but that doesn't mean that consistency carries no weight (it definitely does, see the lead section in WP:MOS). I think you're misunderstanding my comment on "outlier" or maybe I'm not making it clear - my point is not to ensure that all snooker articles are the same, it's to ensure that if changes are agreed, then they are rolled out consistently e.g. (btw I understand this is a separate topic) the changes made to the calendar on 2023–24 have not been rolled out on the earlier seasons yet. Of course, possibly it just hasn't been done yet as these are recent changes, but my comment is just a hope that they will be and the calendar format on 2023-24 is not an outlier with earlier seasons. Andygray110 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consistency is indeed very important, as much as some would like to downplay the idea that it isn't. There seems to be a recent necessity to "rush through" decisions for some reason, and I'd appreciate if everyone could stop trying to finish discussions as fast as possible without achieving meaningful consensus with a wider range of editors. Just because someone is "late to a discussion" (by a few hours) or they are trying to encourage consistent application of the guidelines does not mean their opinion should be ignored or treated as irrelevant.
Going back to the original discussion, I don't know why the season links were removed from the table, they should be there for the reasons noted by @Betty Logan. I also don't know why there was a problem with the previous format before it was changed randomly without any meaningful explanation for the change. The format of the table used in this previous edit is fine, and actually central alignment of this table in other pages would be welcomed, as well as the format being duplicated. I'd also like to echo the sentiments of Betty by pointing out that footnotes are not a place to put key information: they should be used for corrective information or citations only (see the Zhao Xintong performance table re his removal from the 2023 Masters for an example of a correctly-applied and meaningful footnote).
In the case of the Championship League, it may be better to have two tables under different headings [one heading for the predominant invitational version, and another heading for the recent COVID-induced ranking version], rather than the merged version we have at the moment. It is worth noting that a lot of tournaments, over the years, have had their ranking status changed [from NR to WR, or vice versa], so this should factor into table structures wherever possible. -- CitroenLover (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could maybe go along with the idea of making two completely separate tables for the Championship League R and NR versions. That would certainly be a way to bring it into line with the rest. There's also an argument for splitting it into two separate articles, since the format and structure of the two events are so different.  Alan  (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was the one that made these "controversial" edits to the tables in the first place, and here's my thoughts: I fully appreciate the importance of a consistent format across similar pages, and I was planning on updating the rest later. I'm glad that there's now a wider discussion about the format, so after we reach a consensus on these I (and hopefully others) can apply them to the relevant pages. I'll continue to make mock ups (there are some in my sandbox for various things) to help the discussion. AmethystZhou (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CitroenLover: I have changed the Championship League table back to the "standard" format, which is not sortable, has a single column for "Venue" with no footnotes, and is therefore much easier to work with. Note to @AmethystZhou: the table is centred using style="margin:auto;" and I think most users prefer this to the left alignment that you have been using recently.  Alan  (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made a few small changes - swapping the runner-up and score column and adding the timeline. Although, MOS:TABLE says "Wikipedia tables are set flush-left, and allowed to grow rightward, not centered on the page." so maybe we should use the default left-align for these tables. AmethystZhou (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good to me. 👍👍👍 CitroenLover (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks OK to me too  . I prefer these tables centered. As long as they don't get too wide it is not a problem.  Alan  (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mark Allen out of 2024 Championship League edit

I can't find a proper reference anywhere about Zhang Anda replacing Mark Allen in the Championship League, other than the name being changed at the official website. And doesn't have it yet either. Does anyone have any information?  Alan  (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found an archived version (from 15 December) of Group 2 here which has Mark Allen listed as participating. That's the best I can come up with for now.  Alan  (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] now has a note about the change, so I've used it as a reference.  Alan  (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Names of some Championship League articles edit

Three of the Championship League tournament articles have very odd names. I fully understand how this came about, because of the mess COVID made of the schedule in 2020 and 2021. But now that the dust seems to have settled, it would seem sensible to change these now. I would suggest the following:

That would bring them into line with all the others, except for the round–robin which was a one-off anyway. Anybody agree/disagree?  Alan  (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...sorry - just realised that the 3rd one in my list was renamed a long time ago. Only two then.  Alan  (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thing is the first two require no disambiguation, because there is no other event. The reason why we disambiguate 2021 Championship League (2021–22 season) is because there is a 2021 Championship League (2020–21 season) article. As these both have the same title, we disambiguate. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK - no problem. I just thought it would be tidier.  Alan  (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I totally understand. Article titles are supposed to be succinct, the reason why we don't have (snooker) at the end of every title. They don't have to be internally consistent either. My thoughts are that we should only disambiguate if there is another article with the same name (or, one is incredibly likely to be created). Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have a number of articles disambiguated with (snooker), most of them being home nations events. See for example: 2023 Scottish Open (snooker) but the undisambiguated title doesn't exist. I can see Scottish Open offers a reason for why this is, but until any such articles are made for the other sporting events, I feel we shouldn't disambiguate these snooker pages until it becomes a requirement to do so (and there's nothing to suggest those other sports are getting pages tbh). -- CitroenLover (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I kind of agree, but I know the wider wikisphere doesn't so much. There are articles such as 2018 Scottish Open (badminton), as much as we shouldn't need to disambiguate if there is no other article with the same page, it wouldn't be great to have 2018 Scottish Open (snooker) and then the next year have 2019 Scottish Open, because that one is free. Because it's a series of articles, they should probably be as consistent as we can be. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That being the case, for consistency, should we make the changes to the names of the two articles as suggested in my original post?  Alan  (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the 2019-20 event was never called the 2020 Championship League, so should stay where it is. The second should probably move to (invitational) for consistency. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that would be right. The 2019–20 Championship League was the usual format, and I think should therefore become "2020 Championship League (invitational)" to bring it into line with the rest. The 2020 Championship League (2019–20 season) was a one-off round-robin tournament and I think should either be left as it is, or changed to "2020 Championship League (round–robin)" or something similar.  Alan  (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would have thought we should the name used at the time the event took place. Whether that's consistent or inconsistent with the names of the other similar events doesn't really come into it. Nigej (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, the 2019-20 Championship League was always known as the 2019-20 Championship League, not known as the 2020 Championship League. See [27] for example. We can't just name it the 2020 event because we just want to. There is two events called the 2020 Championship League, the 2020 Championship League (2019–20 season) and 2020 Championship League (ranking). The first could probably be "invitational", certainly not round-robin, because all Championship League events are round-robins. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that's right either. Championship League events are not all round-robins. The "normal" invitational version is a weirdly structured mish-mash of round-robins and play-offs, with a final best-of-five match. The 2020 Championship League (2019–20 season) was a complete one-off, all round-robin, with no "final" as such.  Alan  (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But to call one edition the "round-robin" one, when they all have a round-robin isn't very descriptive. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is very true, but its current name isn't descriptive either. I think it needs to be called something that sets it apart from all the others.  Alan  (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WST website update edit

Hi folks, the WST website has been updated to the long-awaited new format. However, WST have failed to introduce a redirect system for all the old linnks, which means every link we have pointing to something like will go to a 404 Not Found. As an example:

The new link format appears to involve including the year, month and day when the post was made (eg is the new link for the above article). The only way we're going to be able to fix this over hundreds of articles is to either:

  • Manually update every single link [after searching for every single title through the new search box] OR
  • Getting a bot to scrape the pages and adding the details in automatically.

While the new site is welcome, this broken link issue is not very helpful at all. They might introduce a redirect system for all these broken links in due course, but until then, all our WST links are invalid. -- CitroenLover (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's terrible. Perhaps we can use archive links, many of the WST pages are archived. EDIT: It also broke all of the tournament pages. The Masters, for example: old / new.AmethystZhou (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Might be worth waiting to see if they do fix the redirects (although in my experience they rarely do). If there is a distinct naming convention, we can fix with AWB, else use archive-urls (you can run IABot on an article). Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image urls are also broken. If you go to the Murphy link above, the images are all missing. I just sent an e-mail to WST about the broken links and images, hopefully they add redirects, it shouldn't be too difficult to implement on their part. Although, the new urls do follow a naming convention. turns into, and the added dates are the article publication date. AmethystZhou (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's right, but trying to automate making that change relies on knowing the published date, which will kill the task being done by AWB/a bot. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 23:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If someone shows me a bunch of before and after URLs (to the same content, before and after) I might be able to work out some kind of scriptable solution.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the "news" articles all follow the same pattern as shown above, just insert the publication date shown at the top of the article. The other pages like the tournament pages are a bit more problematic, though. The Masters, for example, was moved from to This is a huge mistake on WST's part IMO, now even Google will show the same broken old links that leads nowhere. AmethystZhou (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, at least that one's a simple AWB/JWB substition. As for the others, if I'm understanding correctly, it requires going back to the article (somehow) and finding the date in it? If so, I can't fix that. If citations already have the date, maybe that could be extracted, though. But I guess it would still require manual testing of the repaired URL. Fargh.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SMcCandlish: You would also need to be careful not to just substitute the URL, because it also appears (in its entirety) within the "archive-url" tag for the citations which have been archived. There are many of these, and thankfully the archives all work OK.
Sure. Hopefully the WST people will fix this on their end. Scripting up some stuff to fix at least some of this would be a lot of gruelling regular expression and JavaScript work (and I'm rather backlogged on that account for a different on-site project).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The more I look at this, the more intractable it seems. There doesn't appear to be any way to reliably distinguish something like from other pages at the site (other than those with standardized directory prefixes like /tournaments/ or /players/), including ones that would not be fixed by a change to format, even after doing a tremendous amount of work to detect and "munge" various date formats. Urgh.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are right, the new format is actually better in that it distinguishes different categories of pages. But "upgrading" from the old to new is very difficult for us to do. Also, I manually fixed the WST links in the 2024 Masters article, and noticed that some of them had the wrong "date" tag, so using a script to automatically put the date from that tag into the url would cause some errors. Though if you Google the title of the page, it seems to capture the correct original publication date. AmethystZhou (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Downright nightmarish.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A nightmare as you say! It seems to me there are only two options. Option one is to manually go through all of the thousands of citations individually to correct them. Option two is to convince the WST's software suppliers to provide redirects. It would appear that there are two companies involved. One is and the other is Someone who is a lot more tech savvy than me will need to talk to them.  Alan  (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AmethystZhou has sent an email to WST, but my experience is that they will not respond. It might be better to try to contact their software provider, but I have no idea who that is. The ideal solution would be to get them to provide redirects, which I don't think would be too onerous a task.  Alan  (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...also: the WST player template, which is used in the "External links" section of many players' articles, does not work anymore; and the vast majority of the citations in the nicknames template are now broken, although most of them are archived.  Alan  (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most references should be archived. External links will be broken. Any ideas what the naming convention change is for players? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There doesn't seem to be a naming convention at all. For Ronnie O'Sullivan:
Old =
New =
 Alan  (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh wow that's awful. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems wst have replaced most SEO-friendly slugs with UUID’s. They guarantee that no two players can have the same name in a url, but it is also a horrible format for public-facing url’s unless you have some specific reason to use them. — CitroenLover (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the easiest thing to do is just change url-status to dead and use the archive if it exists. That's what I'll be doing from now on. I don't suppose WST will ever fix the problem. And they've utterly jumped the shark with that awful new title font they're using. Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On this note, I see that the new match stats page doesn't include century breaks per tournament. I saw Nigej add snookerinfo as a source for this (and it does indeed have the info). I just wanted to grasp if we deem it to be a RS or not. I thought previously we had it down as a situational source. Happy to have a full new thread for this, but it seems most suitable here.
I know if we take anything to GAN or FAC it'll get brought up, so best to have a convo about it first. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One problem we still have is the that new WST is pretty useless for statistical information. See eg [28] which has the season total of centuries by player (scroll down). This has, for instance, Kyren Wilson with 31 and Zhou with 30, while snookerinfo has 32 and 29 (cuetracker has 32 and 29 too). Personally I happy with snookerinfo. Unlike cuetracker, it's got a very restricted amount of data, basically just the centuries. This have always been 100% reliable from my perspective. If they started publishing other types of data then I might need to reconsider. Nigej (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel like, at this point, we should probably rely more on alternative sources of statistical data, for anything that can't be found on WST's site. is what I've been using [and its generally accurate to my knowledge], so if anything matches up with it, that would be good enough for me. --CitroenLover (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that is a good source. However it doesn't deal in frame scores/centuries before the semi-final stage. So it's no use for anything relating to century totals. It's true that there is sometimes text like "The 142 in the first frame was Carter's 400th career century", but the suspicion is that this information has come straight out of the snookerinfo site that we're discussing. Certainly there's no indication AFAIK that maintain this information themselves. Nigej (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, is grand, but doesn't actually cover century breaks per tournament. Snooker Scene always used to, but I haven't gotten a copy since Clive left. BennyOnTheLoose might well know though. I think the thing is, if snookerinfo is the only place that covers the info, that doesn't mean we can cite it as reliable. I don't really know what editorial oversight it has, or how we can rely on the info it produces. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been adding the WST live score pages for each individual match for the Masters, but it's probably not the best option for tournaments with more matches. AmethystZhou (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I noted earlier the WST site is very unreliable on pretty much any basis, but we continue to use it, shutting our eyes to the issues there. At the end of the day reliability is judged on a track record, and I've got say that snookerinfo passes that, based on matching statements in other sources that we regard as reliable (generally someone reaching a particular milestone). Nigej (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Snooker Scene doesn't include century breaks as a distinct list, but does have them all in the match details. In some years, they used to do "career prize money" and "career century breaks" lists, but I haven't seen one for a while. No source is perfect, and it seems like snookerinfo might be good as we can get. Is there any appetite to try to get some tpyes of info from Cuetracker (excluding the known issues) accepted as reliable? I'm happy to draft up something for the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Am I correct in thinking that the consensus on CueTracker's unreliability comes from older data, and whether they include events that may not be considered professional tournaments? If so, something like a date cut-off and limit to tournament stats of official WST professional events could be good. AmethystZhou (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure it really comes from just older data. The issue initially related to the use of composite data (mostly career totals) that were added (mostly uncited) in player infoboxes. This was commonly centuries totals, prize money totals, non-ranking wins. We removed the latter two from the infobox (since we couldn't find any reliable source for these) and centuries totals are now stored in a central location. Obviously the cuetracker totals are simply the sum total from the data that's in it. Some events are not and some events that are in it (as professional events) don't seem to regarded as such by others. I suppose the other issue is whether we could usefully use the information relating to a particular match or tournament (say). There's such a lot of data and we've not idea where it all comes from (mind you, you could say that a lot of other sources). Is there a compelling reason to use it? Nigej (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know whether or not it's a "compelling reason", but CueTracker is always my first port-of-call to check the century breaks totals for ongoing tournaments. For instance: agrees with SnookerInfo which agrees with our total for the Masters. This is, pretty much, always the case. Also CueTracker is the only site that regularly records the referees for matches. Our primary source (WST) is totally unreliable in almost every way.  Alan  (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we did petition to use cuetracker, we'd have to do so on a very strict "situational source" basis, that we only use it for certain items of information. Specificallythat it is used only for tournament total century breaks, and not for things which it was previously used for, such as career century breaks, total career prize money, and that it shouldn't be used to source prose information. Looking back at some old pages, they used cuetracker almost exclusively to source things like career summaries, which we have plenty of better sources to do this. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds like a plan. How do we go about doing that then?  Alan  (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A well thought out post to WP:RSN is probably a good start Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't have a clue where to start with that.  Alan  (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too wide edit

There has been a bit of a discussion in Talk:2024 World Grand Prix about the bracket getting too wide. There doesn't seem to be much point in keeping the seed numbers and tooltips in after the first round. It seems like needless repetition and makes the bracket wider than it needs to be. Nigej has also suggested going back to using flagicons after the first round. So - leave the first round as it is, change to flagicons for subsequent rounds and take out the seeding numbers and tooltips for subsequent rounds. Agree/disagree?  Alan  (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have commented my opinions there. Tl:dr team width should be 220, flagicon after round 1. Seedings in tournaments such as this, which are restricted fields, really should be going into the seedings parameters and not the player name parameters, thats what it is for. CitroenLover (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. If you look at this previous discussion you'll see that it was (pretty much) agreed to use this style for the seeds since using the seed parameters is "confusing because the seedings and the scores are the same size and font, to the left and right of the players' names". If we just do as suggested by Nigej and myself, then having "team-width=auto" is no longer a problem.  Alan  (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about splitting the last 16 and later rounds into a separate table? It will solve the width issue, and also highlight the later few rounds, which I think most people would be more interested in looking at. It was done this way in the past, especially for the UK Championships with the flat-128 draws, e. g. 2019. AmethystZhou (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't much like that style. Anyway - the problem has now gone away, and I don't mind the flagicons so much now that I've got the previews switched off.  Alan  (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[Copy of comment from Welsh Open thread as I hadn't been aware of this thread].
I would strongly favour keeping the seeding numbers throughout, using whichever draw bracket format works best visually. It's confusing having to trace back to the start of a 64- or 128- entry draw to see what seed number (if any) the semi finalists are! I can't think of any examples from any sport in any medium where I've seen the seed numbers hidden once you get part way into a draw. Rio309w (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-ranking titles edit

Hi all, someone posted this on my talk page: "Just want to know if the wiki snooker community is considering making a separate section/chart to list snooker players Senior Tour titles count as a whole new category instead of the current practice of listing it under the current 'Non-ranking titles'. I cannot see what justifies the recently finished, single-framed final match tournament - Mr Vegas Seniors 900 tournament being listed in the same category as The Masters or the Champion of Champions or Shanghai Masters etc., they are completely different in importance and difficulties and should not belong in the same category. Even listing World Seniors Championship title alongside The Masters or the Champion of Champions is unfitting. Obviously they are tremendously different in importance, some may argue they would trade dozens and dozens Senior titles to just one Masters. Having a separate category would make it easier for new fans of the sport to recognize the differences in these tournaments and grasp the weight of the achievements of the players."

@Lee Vilenski noted: "Well, I mean 'non-ranking' also contains super low profile events like the Vienna Open or Pink Ribbon events in the same bracket as other non-ranking events. Personally, I don't know why we try to count non-ranking events, as having 20 small non-ranking events don't amass to winning the Masters or the like. As for having a separate section, I'm not sure. Perhaps we should only mention professional titles, and then really notable non-ranking titles, which would include things like the seniors events and the national amateur titles. The issues you'll get would be with setting the inclusion criteria too low, and having John's bar's U25s handicap pairs or the like"

We probably need to set some parameters around what counts as noteworthy non-ranking titles. The Masters, Shanghai Masters, and Champion of Champions are obvious current ones. However, the Steve Davis bio lists his participation in 81 non-ranking finals, which seems excessive.

Thoughts? HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone, probably the same person, posted to my talkpage asking me to put the seniors televised 900 from pre-new year onto the season page as well. I am not acrive enough here now to be able to do this [and most of my time is spent on a mobile device which is hard enough to post on, let alone edit, considering my screen keeps freezing and not responding to my inputs]. CitroenLover (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not the same user, unless they have an incredibly good VPN service. The one on your talk page was almost certainly blocked user User:DooksFoley147, best to just WP:DENY. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have not posted under any other ips and I don't have a handle, so whoever it is, it's not me. Especially after reading all the exchanges here, I get the impression that this other person - DooksFoley147 - you guys are talking about, seems to be all FOR the Seniors Tour being listed as a professional event, while I'm all AGAINST it. 2605:52C0:1001:260:E000:68FF:FEFE:D3BC (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to throw in my two cents, it could simple, we can keep it simple and systematic at the same time by following simple rationales, and divide all tournaments into 4 broad categories:
Professional Ranking(most easily defined), Professional Non-ranking, Amateur(also very easily defined), and Seniors Tour. The Professional Ranking and Professional Non-ranking categories must be a WST event to begin with.
I want to elaborate on the ‘Professional Non-ranking' category: it must be 1) a non-ranking tournament is open to all professional players. But almost all professional non-ranking tournaments have qualification criteria such that the number of players cannot be the full 128 players on the tour. However this does NOT mean that these tournaments are not open to all players, for example, ALL professional players have a chance to contend for a place in The Masters, as are ALL professional players have a chance to contend for a place in the Champion of Champions, the CHANCE is open for them, therefore even though The Masters and Champion of Champions only allow 16 players in each of the events, they are still open to ALL professional players.
or 2) invites players without an upper cap to their professional ranking, this is the case with ALL professional non-ranking tournaments, there cannot be a rule saying "a player with a current ranking above top 32 cannot participate". Or both (as almost all Professional Non-ranking tournaments do satisfy both rules)
Therefore, even though Seniors Tour tournaments are WST events, the Seniors Tour does not meet "Professional Non-ranking" tournament definition as I just mentioned, for which I will also elaborate on: In the past, in certain years, players participate in Seniors Tour can NOT be a current professional player to begin with! They must be an amateur or someone dropped off the tour! That puts the Seniors titles in those particular years equivalent to amateur titles at best. Now the current rule is that a player must be ranked 65th on the tour or WORSE to participate in the Seniors Tour, which means, if Ronnie is ranked #1 even if he's 90 years old, he could not participate in Seniors Tour. The rules for Seniors tour had changed so often in the past, some years the age cap is 40, some years the age cap is 45, all these rules were made to keep players like Ronnie out of the tour, then as the class of '92 aged, they realized the age cap alone could not work, so they played around with ranking requirements. So, Seniors tournament under the current rule is not fully amateur either(confusing I know), therefore Seniors titles must be a separate 4th category because it doesn't completely fit into the other 3. The only catch is, when making the general page on Seniors Tour, someone has to research up the participation requirements for each year and explain that to the broad public, so people understand why some players(like Mark Williams) played in certain years and not the other years, and that by itself explains the weight of the tournaments in different years.
Lastly, an extreme example: what if in a particular year, everyone ranked in the top 112 denies to play in The Masters(assuming the #1 seed - reigning world champion is in the top 112 as well), and only players ranked 113-128 participate? Well, The Masters in this case still meets the definition of "Professional Non-ranking", as it satisfies the 2 rules I just mentioned above. It simply means that for that particular year, that particular EDITION of The Masters had a lower quality, but that doesn't take away the prestige of the tournament as a whole, or the tournament in ITSELF being Professional Non-ranking. 2605:52C0:1001:260:E000:68FF:FEFE:D3BC (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that this is all WP:OR. We don't operate that way. Other people decide on the categorisation and we report what they say. Another issue is that you are focussed on the modern game. We're an encyclopedia and cover a hundred year of snooker events. Nigej (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can't just make up our own categories. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But wouldn't you agree these 4 categories would make the most sense? I don't know about wiki rules, but if that's the case, such that we are stuck with only 2 or 3 categories, I'm out of ideas where to best fit the Seniors titles. The Seniors Tour will most likely be here to stay for a long long time ever since its revival around a decade ago, some of the best players are going into retirement soon so I'd say the need for a separate Seniors category becomes more and more eminent and urgent. Sooner or later it has to be dealt with and categorized.
Ps: who decides or how do they decide the need to add a new category?(I had seen the stats part - the gray area on top right - of snooker player's page with their pictures etc. change over the years to include or exclude certain information, so someone must be making the decisions) 2605:52C0:1001:260:E000:68FF:FEFE:D3BC (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must say that I disagree about the World Seniors Tour. As yet it still trying to find its feet and it could go either way. Trying strange new formats like the 900 is a sure sign of desperation. We're not stuck with any particular number of categories - they just need to be well defined and be up to a certain standard, for inclusion. From that point of view I can see that the seniors tour is a good candidate for inclusion. Are there reliable sources listing all the events? As to your final question: The ranking events and the minor-ranking events are well defined - sources exist for them. The others like "non-ranking" are a mish-mash. We've had a few discussions here over the years as to how to resolve the issue but have got nowhere, and that's largely because there's no good sources out there. Nigej (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As per your previous reply and said "other people decide on the categorization" and Lee Vilenski said "we can't just make up our own categories", I still want to be clear about exactly who are these "other people" in the wiki world? It seems like there's a higher power out there but with no direction to contact them? Are these "other people" wiki employees?
Maybe we should take it to these "other people" and have a vote on the need to have a separate category. 2605:52C0:1001:260:E000:68FF:FEFE:D3BC (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We summarise what reliable sources say about a subject. We can't just split up items based on our own feelings of the quality of an article. The only real editorial concept we have for inclusion is notability. It's not for us to say an event is more or less prestigious than another, certainly not separate them in this way. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course what I explained is not based on my own feelings, it is absolutely by objectively speaking, and according to reliable sources such as WST, Seniors Tour entrance requirement clearly excludes it being listed as "professional" tournament. When you limit entrance requirement to only amateurs and people outside of top-64, that in ITSELF explains that such tournaments are not as prestigious as professional tournaments (ranking or non-ranking). It doesn't need me to say and it is not for me to say, but anyone reading the entrance requirement would draw the SAME conclusion that Seniors Tour isn't as prestigious as The Masters, it can simply be measured objectively. Therefore listing them in the same category for titles count is not right. 2605:52C0:1001:260:E000:68FF:FEFE:D3BC (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we could add a qualifier: "professional" non-ranking tournaments. So invitational events run by the WST or Matchroom and are considered part of the "main tour events" (Masters, Champion of Champions, Shanghai Masters, Championship League, the new Saudi event, etc.) count, while others (pro-am, exhibitions, "Macau Masters", etc.) wouldn't. AmethystZhou (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm confused now. Are we thinking about the season articles or the tables in the biographies? If it's the latter we need to consider the last 40 years or so, before WST or Matchroom were even thought of. Nigej (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good question. From a historical perspective, snooker rankings didn't even exist before 1976, and so all tournaments before that point were "non-ranking." Some tournaments have had both non-ranking and ranking incarnations, such as the UK Championship, which began in 1977 but only became a ranking event in 1984, or the Shanghai Masters, which went the other way, transitioning from a ranking to a non-ranking event in 2018. So it's complicated and confusing, even to those who have followed snooker for years. We now have ranking events, non-ranking events, and a new category of tournaments such as the Macau Snooker Masters, which are being billed as "exhibition" events—presumably so they can exist outside the auspices of the WST—but are in reality lucrative tournaments featuring top players and more prize money than most regular ranking events. That said ... we need to consider what the purpose of a snooker biography is, and what counts as notable. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are talking about both. Also, WST was created as a direct takeover of WPBSA tournaments that existed before, it simply is the tournament / commercial arm of WPBSA. So it doesn't matter if we had WST 20 years ago or not, the modern games since 1977 run by WPBSA can simply relate to WST, one can easily understand that. The organization is just a name, doesn't matter what they call it, they are the same list of events. The point is, they are qualified as "professional". I think AmethystZhou understood my point perfectly, the Seniors Tour is in no way a professional tour and should not be listed under "professional" non-ranking. 2605:52C0:1001:260:E000:68FF:FEFE:D3BC (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point above was that if there was a well-defined list of Seniors Tour events then that would be a possible reason to hive them off into a separate table. However the main issue with the non-ranking table is still what it should cover. Do we know which events were "run" (or sanctioned or whatever) by the WPBSA and which ones were not. Was the 1978 Irish Masters "run" by WPBSA? The article says so but provides no evidence. Or did the organisers in Ireland just ring up the pros and organise it? There's basically no coverage in the British press. Seems to me we're still in the dark about many events. And there's the issue about whether some events were "finals" at all. John Spencer's win in the 1975 Benson & Hedges Ireland Tournament was a single match, how can that be a "final" in any real sense? So many questions and so few answers? Nigej (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we can do our best with what we have. If we know for sure a Senior's event's organizers and format and entrance requirements, we can list it accordingly (such as in the Pro-Am as Lee Vilenski and others suggested). For the events that really lack good sources, we can instead put them under maybe as an "uncertain" category, instead of "guessing" which category it best fits. At least when doing it this way, everything categorized is concrete, and events needing guess-work will be put aside. When an event consists of just one match, in a sense it can be defined as a finals match, this is the case with challenge format events, such as the challenge format of many world championships before the crucible era, and yes, it is correct for those to stay as non-ranking, even though I personally think those would be more fitting to be amateur events. Since "professional" means to practice something as a profession and make a full time living out of it, and pre-crucible era's world championships were largely treated as amateur events and no one could make a full-time living out of snooker as a profession back then, so pre-crucible era is more like an era of bar sport hobbies. But that is a completely separate topic. 2605:52C0:1001:260:E000:68FF:FEFE:D3BC (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We kind of already do that, see John Higgins#amatuer finals. There's an argument that the Seniors events should just be listed as Pro-Am events and have done with it. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support it. I think this should be done ASAP - switching Seniors Tour titles to a Pro-Am table instead of listing them in the current "Non-ranking titles" table in players' biographies. I just noticed sets a perfect example on how to categorize: it specifically calls The Masters and other Professional Non-ranking events "Professional Invitational", specifically with the word "professional" in it, so it is exactly what my whole point is from the start. It also does not record head-to-head matches on Seniors 900 tour and tournaments alike, since Seniors Tour must not fit into the definition of "professional" in their definition as well. 2605:52C0:1001:260:E000:68FF:FEFE:D3BC (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The seniors have a tour the World Seniors Tour,so they should in no way be listed as a Pro-Am. Pros give ams a 21 point start in a Pro-Am, this does not occur in seniors tournaments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And the Seniors Tour in no way is a professional tour either because it does not meet full professional standard in ANY given year, as such, a Seniors Tournament win should NOT be a professional non-ranking title. Please see my reasons above as I listed 2 distinct rules/rationales to consider an event professional or not. 2605:52C0:1001:260:E000:68FF:FEFE:D3BC (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A Pro-Am tournament is simply an event that has both professional and amatuer players in it. Whether certain events have a handicap system is irrelevant. These events do have professional players who take place. It's a bit of a minefield. Personally, I think professional events, and then major amateur/pro-am events are the only items that really warrant inclusion. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If no new category is being created for Seniors Tour alone, I agree with what you just said, handicap is irrelevant in determining an event is pro-am or not. And Seniors Tour tournaments under the current categorization is best suited for / most similar to Pro-Am category tournaments. 2605:52C0:1001:260:E000:68FF:FEFE:D3BC (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think Nigej already answered your questions above about this by saying that he was happy with how theses events are presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This comment is probably from User:DooksFoley147. Only 1 edit so far so difficult to be 100% certain. The truth is that I'm not "happy with how theses events are presented", certainly not in the biographies. Nigej (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good eye, it was. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal please edit

The above seems have got past the WP:TLDR stage. If someone could come up with a proposal relating to seniors events, with a brief rationale, I think we can make progress in that area. Ideally that should cover everything at {{World Seniors Championship}} (a template which clearly needs to be renamed). Nigej (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of events in calendar tables edit

In a similar vein to @HurricaneHiggins' post above, I'm wondering about the criteria to which we include (or not) events in the season calendar pages (such as 2023–24 snooker season). We currently have a section for Q Tour events, which makes sense because they are run by the WPBSA and are feeder events for the main tour. But the "New professional players" list includes many other events, where the winner gets a tour card. I think those should also be included, but that'd be a lot more events in the list. Is it better if we organize the calendar tables into two categories, professional (main tour events), and non-professional (women's, senior, Q Tour, etc.), or even split the non-professional events to a separate page? AmethystZhou (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally, I've always thought that when we talk about the "snooker season", we are specifically talking about the WST. I did previously put some work into having larger list articles covering everything cue sport related - see 2018 in cue sports for example, which covers amateur events, women's events and also other cue sports (billiards, nine-ball, etc). Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'll notice from on there, that events are simply listed, given a location and what the final is. I think keeping the seasons articles as they are (maybe renaming them to 2019-20 world snooker season or 2019-20 WST snooker season) and limiting the scope to just those events and how they interact, and having an article for each year covering all cue sports tournaments (or, at least the notable ones) solves the issue. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improving the "Performance and rankings timeline" tables in player articles edit

I'd like to propose some potential improvements to these tables. There are a couple of issues with the current format:

1. Some tournaments changed formats throughout the years, and "1R/2R/3R" may mean different things. The UK Championship for example, the first round in 2015 is the last 128, while the first round in 2023 is the last 32. And in the Northern Ireland Open, the tournament has always had the same format with 128 players. However, in 2020, there's no qualifying and the first round of the main stage is the last 128, but in 2023 there is a qualifying round and the first round of the main stage is the last 64.

2. While we want to differentiate when a player lost in qualifying versus in the main stage, it's also useful to point out which stage the player made it to. I think it's better to use "L128/L64/L32/L16/QF/SF/F/W" instead of "LQ/1R/2R/3R", etc. Basically, treat qualifying and main stage as the same. Although tournaments with limited entry such as the Masters or Players Series should be noted with "DNQ" if the player didn't qualify because of rankings, which is different from "A" or "WD" for absent or withdrawn.

3. The current color-coding is confusing, an actual color gradient would make more sense, such as ColorBrewer. Since it's a multi-hue gradient, it allows smooth color-coding from L128 to L16, while emphasizing later stages in a different color, like so:

A LQ L64 L32 L16 QF SF F W

4. Is it possible to make these tables into a template, to automatically populate the results and Wiki links? Also to sort the tournaments in order of the season, since it changes slightly every season. It'll probably be a lot of work though.

I have taken part of the table from Judd Trump and created a mockup in my sandbox, please take a look! AmethystZhou (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposals to revise these tables come up quite regularly, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2023/February#Performance and rankings timeline table, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2022/April#Results tables, but never come to any conclusion. A problem seems to be that making a wholesale revision to the tables tends to lead to long discussions which get nowhere with some people asking whether we need these tables at all, given that they're completely unreferenced. Maybe a step by step approach might make better progress. Nigej (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Long overdue changes, but I'm not sure we are looking at the right bits. First, I agree we need to change from the rounds to how many people are in that round. A first round loss at the Worlds isn't equivalent to a first round loss at the English Open.
I'm not sure I like the colours (not specifically ColorBrew). I get that it gives a visual representation of the events, but it could almost be a heatmap of success, which isn't really what we are here to do.
My biggest issue with this section is that it is almost always uncited (aside from the rankings). I think that should be our number one priority on our bios to cite this section properly. It can be done, but no source covered every player for every season (and definitely not every event). Perhaps we should have a whipround and find out which sources we can use for this purpose.
I've also thought for the longest time that we should ONLY include the ranking events (and only when they are full/semi- ranking events. It's what makes these tables massive. I get that people use these tables to find out all of the information about a player, but I don't think we can offer that service. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Writing out prose for the career performance will take a LOT of work, and adding the references to individual events to the table will make it much wider. Maybe we can simply add all the references at the end of the table. The older events would be problematic, but should be sufficient for recent events. I agree with @Nigej that a step-by-step approach is good for improving these tables, and adding references could be the first one. And while going through these, the table can be updated to the L128/L64 format at the same time.
I personally like the color-coding, though. Without it, the table is very difficult to read (see this). AmethystZhou (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are right, without the colours it's pretty difficult. I do think sourcing the materials is the most important bit.Shaun Murphy for example is unsourced (aside from the rankings), but see what we've done with say Steve Davis#Performance and rankings timeline works with a reference column. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Steve Davis one is great! I forgot about the player pages on, and thought each individual entry needed a reference... Now if only WST can provide such convenient sources, but I digress. The additional row at the top for references is perfect. AmethystZhou (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be my suggestion, only goes back so far, but The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker: The Complete Record & History goes up to 2004, so it overlaps. The only issue as far as I can see is finding all the player numbers for the lists if we were to try and automate it. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like I made the last comments at both the discussions linked by Nigej, si I'm hoping this won't complete a hat trick. Joe Davis, John Spencer (snooker player), Ray Reardon, Terry Griffiths, Cliff Thorburn, Joe Johnson (snooker player), Clive Everton, Tony Knowles (snooker player), and Tony Meo also have referenced performance & rankings timelines. If we are changing, can we also get rid of the subheadings like "Former ranking tournaments" and "Former non-ranking tournaments"? As I've said before, I hate seeing the World Championship or UK championship split across different rows (e.g. at Reardon's article). Might also be a chance to improve accessibility (see towards the end of Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/John_Spencer_(snooker_player)/archive1#Support_from_Harrias). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed with everything Benny said Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree also - easy to add a note to distinguish ranking/non-ranking instead of those separate sub-headings. Also like the suggested L32 format instead of the current one. Not keen on the suggested colour change though; personally I find it hard to distinguish between them and not sure it would pass the contrast guidelines of WP:COLOR. Aware colours aren't necessary but personally think the current colour scheme works fine visually and assists readability. Andygray110 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say one way we can make rhis table better is to do what was done on the season overview: that is to say, split it into multiple tables. I also think we should stop separating tournaments just because one version was non-ranking and then became ranking later, overall it is the same tournament and we could use a cross mark or star to indicate a non-ranking edition.
I don’t know if this next suggestion is possible, but can a cell [ie a ] be split into two within an existing row, when using the mediawiki table syntax? Im thinking that it would help to not make these so unwieldly, as currently if you go to someone like ronnie o’sullivan, the table is massively wide because of a ton of “not held” rowspans over several seasons when the tournament didn’t exist in the first place, making it exceptionally hard to follow.
i agree that this would need proactive minor changes over time. Trying to discuss it all as one overhaul will never go anywhere. Any incremental minor updates to improve the editabilitt of the tables would be a srart. CitroenLover (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the width problem, I think there are two solutions: 1) make it scrollable with a sticky header column (I don't know how to do the latter), or 2) split it into two tables, each one with a max span of ~ 25 years.
I also agree on splitting the table based on types of tournaments. We can have a main table that has current ranking events, followed by current non-ranking events. In the case that a current ranking event was non-ranking in the past, do not split it into a separate row, but denote on the relevant entry that it was non-ranking for that year. And put all the previous events in a separate table. This way, long-running tournaments like the World Championship or the UK will stay in a single row. AmethystZhou (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of world number one snooker players edit

I've started a discussion at Talk:List of world number one snooker players#Total days/weeks at number one which may be of interest. Nigej (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dates in draw templates edit

When was it decided to put the dates of a round in the draw templates for some recent tournaments? Who intends to spend many hours updating every other page [and there are many of them] to use this format, especially when there’s not going to be any information online for some tournaments at all as to when rounds were played? This should stay consistent and simply mention the number of frames that are played in that round, with any dates being in the prose immediately above it.

i’m going to go out there and say it: there has been a lot of extremely minor changes being made lately this season to the snooker articles, seemingly on the whims of one or two users making changes for the sake of it, and its bordering on becoming a nuisance for trying to read any snooker pages on the wiki, because it is creating a wildly inconsistent UX for people who have no idea what logic is being used to justify these changes or why they are being made.

While i appreciate all editors who contribute to the wiki, I personally can not fathom the logic for this latest change to the pages, which i didn’t notice until just now. Thanks. CitroenLover (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not so worried about what we did in the past. What matters to me is whether the change is an improvement. Is it better for our readers than the old system? If it is better we should keep it, if it's worse or no better we should keep the old style. Personally I don't find the "best of 9" that useful, since it's obvious from the scores, but then I'm not sure the dates are that useful from an encyclopedic point of view. We need to include what's important but generally no more than that. Nigej (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem i see with the dates in draw templates is that it can be very confusing when more than one round is played in a day. When was it played? Was it in the morning, afternoon or evening? Were two rounds played in the same session? Are there other sporting articles that put dates in draw templates? Personally, having the best of X frames removes any of those kind of issues, since that kind of additional context can be included in the summary prose above the template. — CitroenLover (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question is whether it is useful from an encyclopedic point of view. Does someone look back at an event from 2000 want to know that a match took place on the Wednesday. Probably not. Do they want to know whether it took place on the Wednesday afternoon, even less so. For many years we have put the dates in the World Championship article, see eg 2023 World Snooker Championship#Main draw, but I find it just visual clutter. I'd be quite keen to get of those dates. Nigej (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what its worth, I think having the top of a bracket explaining the amount of frames is helpful, simply because it gives you a basis for what happens below (and, if the event is in progress, and you look at the draw, you know how long the match is).
I don't think having the dates of when it happened actually helps you to understand what the bracket says, it's just more information. In the prose, I always like to give the dates of when the rounds takes place, but outside of that it's not really all that relevant. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nigej I do recall the case of the Worlds, but that for me is an obvious exception: matches take place over multiple sessions and often over multiple days, so the dates are necessary to provide the context of when a match starts and ends. This is unlike other tournaments, where matches are short and only the final takes place over multiple sessions [but also only in a single day]. The questions above from me in my first reply were rhetorical, entirely designed to point out the rabbit hole that we would end up going down by putting dates in the draw template, for any other tournament that isn't the Worlds.
@Lee Vilenski Agree on this point. I will leave it a few days and if no one opposes, I'll restore the "best of X" to the pages which had them replaced with dates. -- CitroenLover (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CitroenLover: Not really a big deal for me either way. I put the dates in the bracket headers for the German Masters since I thought it was useful additional information, rather than the endless repetition of "best of" which is obvious from the scores anyway, and is always stated a number of times in the prose.  Alan  (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thing about the scores is that it isn't super obvious to a non-snooker reader. "Best of" is only really pertinent to our sport. There's plenty of other sports that have time limits, or scores that can go over the limit (say bowls, where it might be first to 11, but it could finish 12-1). I get to the general reader the info is "obvious", but I don't think it hurts to give this context (especially if the number changes between rounds). In a lot of the articles we write with prose, it's less of an issue, but even then it's no big deal to include.
I'm just not a fan of the dates as after it happens, it doesn't matter what date the match itself took place, and we aren't a TV Guide to show when matches are happening during the event. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: I thought it was useful additional information (but not as a TV guide) because in this case, as with some other tournaments, there are "overlaps" where rounds 1&2 are played on the same day, and rounds 2&3 are played the following day. I don't mind either way, so CitroenLover can go ahead and restore the "best of" repetition with no objection from me.  Alan  (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just put the "best of" data back into the brackets for the German Masters, but left the dates info in. Please feel free to revert if you like.  Alan  (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Constant tinkering is more than just a nuisance — it's a deterrent to other editors contributing. The quality of tournament articles is markedly deteriorating over this, to the point where many will struggle to reach GA or FA status in the future. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've now gone ahead and removed the dates from draw templates where they appeared in this seasons' articles. CitroenLover (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duplicate Wiki links in prose edit

I've been writing the summary section of the German Masters, instead of linking them once at the beginning and referring to them using their unlinked family names afterward, I added Wiki links to all the players' names in each section (Last 32, Last 16, etc.). MOS:DUPLINK says: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence in a section." I think this is clearer, as the linked names are a bit more visible. Also, readers may jumps directly to read the later sections like the final, and would have to scroll all the way up to find a Wiki link to click on. What are your thoughts on this? AmethystZhou (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, duplink only just changed (it used to read once in lede and then once in body). I still read this to mean once per level 2 section (so, overview, summary, draw, etc.) rather than per every header. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tend to agree with that and with the OP's point: avoiding people having to go "name hunting" is a large part of why the RfC about DUPLINK concluded to soften it. Many readers do arrive at particular sections, or jump to them from the ToC, and we can't depend on linear reading from the top. But we also do not want to create a "sea of blue". It's a balance.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I brought this up at another location, but this doesn't seem to effect first and last names though. Until now (at FA at least) if you introduce someone, you then refer to them by their surname throughout. However, this consensus suggests that users might not understand a name if they click a specific section. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I was still referring to them with last name, but just adding a full name with Wiki link at the beginning of each "section" rather than at the beginning of the entire article. Although it'd be nice if the MOS clarifies on what level of a header is a "section". AmethystZhou (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:SECTIONLEVELS says ==Section== and ===Subsection=== so Lee Vilenski's reading of the MOS would appear to be correct.  Alan  (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, have a look at the 2024 German Masters article, which is now indeed a "sea of blue" after determined editors have repeatedly linked players' names in every sub-section of the tournament summary. This can't be a rational way forward. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MOS:DUPLINK says links may be repeated at the first occurrence "in a section", but it doesn't clarify to which WP:SECTIONLEVELS. Maybe repeating it at each of the last 64, last 32, etc. is too much, and we can instead do it at the "early rounds", "later rounds" level. AmethystZhou (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's got to be level 2 headers. The main reason for the change is that mobile users can skip to section heads without expanding the rest of the article. However, that's not true for level 3 (or lower) headers. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've put a thread on the talk page of MOS:DUPLINK Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Lee, I'll clean up the article later if the way I'm linking them now is too much. AmethystZhou (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's a level 2 header, though, @Lee Vilenski? It would be far more sensible to have each player wiki-linked only once within the "Summary" section of each tournament and referred to by surname only after that. I appreciate that editors are trying to abide by the ambiguous language of the current MOS, but there is too much unnecessary linking. Si Jiahui's name is currently linked six times in the Summary section of this article alone. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:SECTIONLEVELS basically says the section level is how many equal sign is in the Wikitext of the title, e. g. ==section== is level two, which correspond to the "Summary" section of the tournament articles. Currently the 2024 German Masters article has player names linked once per level four section (last 64 level), and I agree that might be too much. But since the "Summary" section is the bulk of the prose and can be quite long, perhaps a better middle-ground is to link once per level three section (qualification, early rounds, later rounds level). AmethystZhou (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, wiki-linking names once per Level 2 section (i.e., once only in the Summary section) is what I'd advocate. This is how we've always done it in the past, and to my knowledge it has never caused any issues, while helping articles be free from "sea of blue" over-linking. As for conventions like "Early Rounds" and "Later Rounds" headers, these are not strictly needed, and many tournament articles have been written without them. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, historically, level 2 headers would actually be overkill. It was historically once in the lede and once in the main body. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, there are also wikilinked names in the main draw, qualifying draw, century breaks section, etc., none of which I take any issue with. I think once in the entire main body might be too restrictive for that reason. But linking a player's name in every single round in the summary is overkill, in my view. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
tables, captions, templates and the like are generally exempt from DUPLINK. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This [29] should resolve it. The consensus in the RfC on the matter was one link per major section, not again and again in every sub-section and sub-sub-section, and sub-sub-sub-section, forming a sea of blue. Everyone should have understood that already.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there is any Wikilayering going on here. That word change makes all the difference. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 05:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not intend to cause any drama, and I'm not sure what exactly is "Wikilawyering", that's not what I'm trying to do either. I honestly thought that linking the names more frequently than once per level-two section would be better, but wasn't sure of the exact meaning on MOS:DUPLINK, so I started this discussion for some clarification. I have now removed the extra links in the German Masters article per consensus here. AmethystZhou (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine. Good work. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 05:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WST player template edit

Now that we're stuck with the new WST website, and I don't suppose they'll ever provide redirects, the WST player template which is used in the "External links" section of many players' articles, does not work anymore. Using Jimmy White as an example,

it is clear that there is no easy way to sort this out. However, the List of snooker players article has references for 262 players, all of which now have working archives. Please feel free to use this as a resource in order to add the archive numbers to the WST player template call. Again using Jimmy White as an example, {{WST player|jimmy-white}} would become {{WST player|jimmy-white|archive=20200622102041}} and at least the archives all work.  Alan  (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just updated Jimmy White's article as above, and it works OK.  Alan  (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We probably need to get a template editor in. As this is a bit of a change, we could probably rework the template to request the info from Wikidata, rather than define it locally. I'll see if I can grab someone. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I put up a thread at WP:URLREQ Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The response there doesn't look very promising. Looks like there's a lot of changes that have to be made manually. However, for the WST player template it's easy to use the archive numbers from the List of snooker players article. Of the 616 players in the list, 262 have references with working archives.  Alan  (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do think we should send an email through to them. I'll see if I can send something through this week, it's important for their website visibility that links from Wikipedia are live. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm fairly sure that you won't get any response from WST. It might be better to contact their software suppliers direct. There are two companies involved. One is and the other is  Alan  (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I e-mailed them a month ago about the broken links in their news articles and specifically mentioned the problem with Wikipedia, but no response. :( AmethystZhou (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not surprising. I've sent them a number of emails since this nightmare started, and have never had a response or even an acknowledgement.  Alan  (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should we implement a new " template"? Many of the past player pages have disappeared from WST, and they also don't have player profiles for non-main tour players. AmethystZhou (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a nice thought. You would need access to Hermund Årdalen's database, since he assigns a number for each player. i.e. Jimmy White is number 20.  Alan  (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's actually less of an issue than you'd think, as those numbers are (I believe) already handled on WikiData. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, it's this one: P4502 I'll see if I can figure out how to make the template... AmethystZhou (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks to the existing {{WST player}} template, I have created the new {{ player}} template! AmethystZhou (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just tried that out - works well.    Alan  (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...and I've added it to the "External links" section of the Jimmy White article (with no parameters) and the Class of '92 article. Works perfectly.  Alan  (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it pulls the article name and cross-reference it to Wikidata, so unless there's some error in Wikidata or the entry doesn't exist, you don't need to manually specify the ID. Same as the WST player template! AmethystZhou (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redundancy in match descriptions edit

There's a tendency in tournament summaries to give redundant information when reporting scores. E.g., constructions such as "Trump whitewashed Ding 5–0." If we know that the match was best of nine, and one player won by a whitewash, then the scoreline by definition has to be 5–0. So it's adequate to say "Trump whitewashed Ding" without adding "5–0". Same with deciding frames. E.g., "O'Sullivan won the deciding frame to win the match 5–4." If a best of nine match goes to a deciding frame, then the scoreline has to be 5–4, by definition, so it's perfectly adequate to say "O'Sullivan won the deciding frame" or similar. Also, there's a growing tendency to explicitly remark on every single break over 99 as being a century break — "Higgins made a century break of 127" rather than "Higgins made a 127 break." Fine on first usage, so as to wikilink "century break," but not every single time. These may seem like small points, but repeated numerous times over a tournament article, they add up to a lot of redundancy for a reader that quickly becomes tiresome. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excessive use of seedings in tournament summaries? edit

Just looking at the summary section for Welsh Open qualifying. I'm noticing a lot of seeding being listed, often for players well outside the top 16 or even top 32. Sample:

"The 80th seed Daniel Wells defeated 37th seed Thepchaiya Un-Nooh 4‍–‍2. ... The 31st seed Pang Junxu made a century break of 103 in the second frame to lead 46th seed Graeme Dott 2‍–‍0, but Dott won three frames in a row for a 3‍–‍2 lead."

I would propose that it's entirely unnecessary to identify players as seeded 31st, 46th, 37th, and 80th like this. I see the seedings as noteworthy in a tournament summary only when a lower seed beats a highly ranked player or does especially well in the event overall, e.g., Si Jiahui reaching the semifinals of the World Championship while ranked 80. Otherwise, listing the seeding for every player like this leads us to get bogged down in minutiae that is off-putting to a general readership. The question I'd ask is what the justification is for this? How relevant is it that the 31st seed beat the 46th seed in a qualifier? HurricaneHiggins (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed on your point, maybe limit such discussions with certain thresholds, such as when a top-16 seed is defeated by someone outside of the top-64? AmethystZhou (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something like that would work, @AmethystZhou. It's definitely noteworthy when world champion Brecel loses to Ishpreet Singh Chadha, ranked around 100th in the world. It's noteworthy when a top-16 player gets knocked out of an event, especially at the earlier stages. But I don't think it adds anything to note the seedings of numerous mid-ranked players, especially when rankings/seedings are constantly shifting anyway. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't say I do it all that often. The qualifiers for these tournaments are often pretty dry, as the summaries in the RS are just "this guy beat this guy", or it's just a score from an RS. Personally, I'd rather we just covered things that happen in the qualifiers, we don't need to make any attempt to cover all matches or anything. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point, @Lee Vilenski. The qualifiers for the World Championship are a bigger deal, with four rounds and best-of-19 matches, so I've tended to give that more space. I'd prefer to focus on the main points or notable happenings in the qualifiers for smaller events. E.g., Bingham and Zhou potentially getting fined after the Welsh Open qualifiers for conceding frames without requiring snookers is an interesting story, because some readers may not know about that rule. Broadly, we should aim for more varied and interesting tournament summaries, beyond dry repetition of (as you put it) "this guy beat that guy", which is all in the draw table anyway. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, we do need some sort of prose, and covering some upsets is very suitable. The World's naturally gets more coverage, so we have the luxury of more coverage. I'll tell you now there's a lot of pain trying to write up a summary for the 2020 Snooker Shoot Out for example. Some are easier to source than others, but I'm not the biggest fan of stating info that's not all that relevant to what's happening (such as seedings if the match goes with the favourite). Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fully agreed. More broadly, the goal should be to write summaries that are informative and engaging, but don't get bogged down in arcane details that a general reader will find off-putting. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The overuse of seedings in prose is definitely a problem. I agree that we should only use seedings when necessary, but remember that the only point of seedings is to make sure that the defending champion is marked as 1 in the draw, with the reigning world champion marked as 2, after which its just the world rankings in the order they appear at the cut-off point (after withdrawals). The entire purpose of this seeding format is just to make sure that neither the defending champion or the world champion can meet each other until the final. Beyond that, seeds are mostly just the players' world ranking plus 2. We are better off just saying "World Champion Luca Brecel was defeated by the world number XXX Ishpreet Singh Chadha in the first round of the German Masters in a match that was held over to the Tempodrom" or something like that, rather than referencing seeds. -- CitroenLover (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timeline graphics in season pages edit

I decided to be WP:BOLD and added a timeline graphic to the 2023–24 snooker season page under the calendar. But as @Nigej and @Betty Logan have raised concerns over the usefulness of similar timeline graphics at List of world number one snooker players, I want to ask your opinions on the calendar timeline.

I think it adds a visual representation of the season, and the Wiki links to each event can be convenient. But I had to use EasyTimeline instead of making an .svg image to include the hyperlinks. I'm not completely satisfied with the EasyTimeline template as its functions are quite limited, and the output image doesn't look nearly as good as .svg graphics.

Do you find the timeline useful? Should we keep it? If so, is there any way we can improve it? AmethystZhou (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't say I understand why we'd have a timeline for a series of events. Only a handful of the events overlap, which is when a visual timeline would be helpful. (Generally it's for things like different memberships that is a bit covoluted). Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand the need for this either when the tournaments are presented in chronological order in the table? HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a fan myself. Works ok for things like geological time periods but here it doesn't add anything here. (my impression is that they were much more used in the early days of Wikipedia, but have really fallen out of fashion) Nigej (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the EasyTimeline template really shows its age, it’s quite clunky to work with and the resulting graphic isn’t all that great. I’ll remove the timelines then if no one supports them. AmethystZhou (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw this earlier in the week but have been busy so unable to properly reply to this until now. Yes I agree this timeline is not necessary and relatively redundant since the table above it is in date-order. -- CitroenLover (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opinions please re: "fluff" edit

I was going to add yesterday's 147 made by John Higgins to the list in the Championship League article, only to find that the list (and all its references) had just been deleted completely by User:Mrloop, with the tag "Removing fluff".

This data has been in the article for a long time, but I changed it from prose to a list and added missing data and a number of references at this edit last July. I also added the 147 made by Kyren Wilson a few days ago.

I have not reverted Mrloop's edit as I don't want to start an edit war, so I put a message in User talk:Mrloop but have had no response.

So my question is this: Is the list "fluff" or not? The footnotes and the detail about opponents and groups could be regarded as being a bit "fluffy" and could easily be removed, but I think the list is valid, properly referenced, information that should be restored. Opinions please.  Alan  (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking through the list on Maximum break, many of the tournament pages have a paragraph describing the maximums made throughout the tournaments' history, such as Scottish Open, British Open, Masters, Paul Hunter Classic, etc. But many don't have such a paragraph, such as UK Championship, German Masters, China Open, etc. Personally I think it's worth including. AmethystZhou (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would we want a list of maximum breaks on an article about a tournament? Whilst some sources are going to say "wow, there's been only X number of maximum breaks at the Masters/World Championships", we wouldn't individually list them in a bulleted list. The location for the list should remain at maximum break and not become a content fork. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I get your point about a content fork. So, that being the case, should the other tournament pages containing data about maximums, as detailed by AmethystZhou above, also have this data removed?  Alan  (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...alternatively I could just change the list back into prose like the other tournaments, the way it was last summer, getting rid of the detail about opponents and groups, but retaining the references.  Alan  (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just done that, and I think it's an improvement.  Alan  (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links on player pages edit

I recently made a new {{ player}} template, which works just like {{WST player}} to pull the page name and cross-reference Wikidata to get the player profile ID, and generate a link to that page. I'd like to add this to the "External links" section on player pages where applicable. However, this section in the pages seem a bit of a mess, with various websites linked (or not), such as WST, GlobalSnooker, World Senior Snooker, etc. I did a search in the archives of WT:SNOOKER and didn't find much discussion on this.

Can we establish a "standard list" of links for the player pages? I'd like to propose including WST and, and removing GlobalSnooker, as the website has been defunct for many years and the links are all very old archives. The {{WST player}} template works great for current players, as well as previous main tour players whose pages are deleted (thanks WST!), where archive links are used instead. WPBSA (e.g. [30]), World Women's Snooker (e.g. [31]), and World Seniors Snooker (e.g. [32]) profile pages could also be included. AmethystZhou (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't remember any previous discussion on these. See WP:EL. My impression is that a large number of Wikipedia external links sections are way out of date, so it would be a useful exercise to go through these. Tend to agree with you that WST and are useful. Probably not GlobalSnooker. We should consider WP:ELNO #1, ie if they don't contain useful information "that is already or should be in the article." then they shouldn't be included. Nigej (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WST and is all we need, provided they only play snooker. As Nigej said, ELNO is the place to check. Things like official websites are fine, and say they also played pool, their Matchroom sport/AZBilliards profile would be suitable. These can get very long if you just let any old link live. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with all above. When I added the player template to the Jimmy White article, I noticed that there's a lot of entries in the "External links" section that should probably be removed.  Alan  (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Something like fails ELNO since it's just a brief biography. Quite a few links got added as a form of advertising (although that's clearly not allowed). And random youtube video