Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Year first in snooker season articles

Should we not name the snooker season articles to have year first like 2010/2011 snooker season and not Snooker season 2010/2011? That would be in line with the general practice in other articles eg 2010-2011 Premier League. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense. It would also be in keeping with other yearly named snooker articles such as the 2010 World Snooker Championship. Betty Logan (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing against if the rankings and ranking points articles are moved to. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If there's no objections would someone like to make the arduous moves? Christopher Connor (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to begin moving some of the articles now since there appears to be consensus: three in favour and no opposing. It's the format used in pretty much everywhere else on the project. I think also the tournament articles were moved earlier. There is I think these sorts that use the year last:

• Snooker season
• Snooker world rankings
• Snooker world ranking points

It would be hard work to move all the articles so I'm only going to do a few, the ones I come across in editing. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Tournament parameters "previous" and "next"

Resolved

 – Added the parameters where appropriate. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a note saying I've created previous and next parameters at Template:Infobox individual snooker tournament. Would be worth adding to all tournaments. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Important CfD

Resolved

 – Result of the CfD was keep. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 18#Category:Pool venues looks like a minor CfD nitpick, but actually has very significant potential consequences for the categorization (and proposed decategorization) of articles within the scope of both WP:SNOOKER and [{WP:CUE]], and the autonomy these projects have in relation to each other (for better or worse). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Snooker articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Resolved

 – Review conducted as requested.

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Snooker articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I checked this stuff out, back when, and it looked okay. Obviously, we'd like more snooker articles included in these CD/DVD releases, but they frankly still need a lot of work. Maybe for Ver. 0.9.? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Cuemaker nominated for deletion

Resolved

 – Article was kept.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Parris. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Lost/forfeit and the three-miss rule

Resolved

See also: User talk:Armbrust § 2004 European Open (snooker) and lost/forfeiting

A dispute, over whether to use "lost" or "forfeit" to describe when someone makes three misses from an unsnookered position, has arisen here (permanent). Seems clear to me the word to use is forfeit, and that these shenanigans are beginning to get tiresome. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd actually have to strongly disagree with you on that; I'll give details of why at the linked discussion (short version: Your opponent winning because of an on-table rule of the game (like the three-misses rule) is your loss, vs. because of an off-table rule about the game and how it is conducted (conceding, not showing up, unsportsmanlike conduct, etc.), which is your forfeit. Just basic, universal sports terminology, not snooker- or cue-sports-specific at all. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

Resolved

 – Question answered.

When counting centuries and 50+ breaks, do we include centuries when counting 50+ breaks? Or is it 50-99 breaks? Christopher Connor (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

A century break is higher then 50, thus we count them to 50+ too. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. That's what I thought, otherwise it would say 50-99 and not 50+. Christopher Connor (talk)

It was question about my edits in 2004 European Open (snooker). I made it just because of the section "Century-breaks" in the same table. I think that on sense it will be more correct to divide a half-centuries and a centuries in these cases, though the rule of the game (50+breaks may be a century too) of course right. ps sorry for my probably bad English:)--Якушев Илья (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

FYI

 – New feature added to project.

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I installed this in the projection, and one at WP:CUE, too. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ranking in the timeline of player profiles

Resolved

 – No comment since over 7 months. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 15:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked through some of the players profiles and just Ronnie O'Sullivan had their revisions ranking in their timeline. We should stick to the system of the ranking at the end of the season. The rankings are altered after every tournament. I can't see a reason why the revisions should be that important to mention them in the timeline. The final seasons ranking is much more important, the ranking throughout the season is just marginal.

Of course if a player like Neil Robertson reaches the No. 1 spot during the season it should be marked in his profile box. --BK193.175.141.2 (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The rankings are "officially" updated after every tournament now with the two year rolling system, but only the rankings after the cutoffs actually count towards how an event is seeded. The rankings between the cutoffs don't effectively matter at all, and each ranking at the cutoff is no less important than the ranking at the end of the season in terms of what it actually counts for. The end-of-season rank is really only interesting from a historical perspective if you want to compare a modern player's ranking performance to that of Davis and Hendry etc. Personally I think we should take account of both situations; permit a player's ranking in the infobox to be updated after each event (since that is their official rank in a nominal sense), but include the rankings at the four cutoff points in the player's timeline, since a player's performance can only be judged in accordance with the ranking used to seed him for those events: a last 16 exit is a good performance for someone ranked 17th, so I think the performance timeline should account for that. Betty Logan (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If we list all the cut-off rankings in the timelines we will have a lot of information all of the sudden. These ranking positions change a lot in small periods of time. The historial timeline should just involve one ranking so it's easy to understand. It also looks very strange if there are suddenly so many rankings listed for just one season. You said it would help to recognize a players performance in a tournament. But you wouldn't even know what ranking is valid for what tournament. My suggestion: In the timeline just the final ranking of the season.--BK193.175.141.2 (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The end of season rank isn't any different to the other cutoff ranks so it's just an arbitrary selection to list one and not the others. The ranks from the previous season were valid for the whole season but this is no longer the case, we'd be listing a rank that is only valid for part of the season. Maybe we're just trying to shoehorn a hangover idea into something that doesn't really apply anymore, and possibly the best solution is to just scrap the rank from the timeline. It's not life or death for me though, so I'm happy to go with the majority view on this. Betty Logan (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's not the most important topic. But I have to disagree to your point that the cut-off rankings are as important as the one at the end of the season. There are a lot of players that keep their best for the Worlds and consequently get their "big points" mainly at the end of the season. I see it like a league championship in football: for me it doesn't matter who leads the table for most of the time but who has the lead at the end. That's my view on the rankings. --BK93.196.40.153 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the cut-off rankings are as important as the one at the end of the season, because they determine the seeded players for certain tournaments. The rankings after EPTC2 determined the players, who are seeded for the 2010 UK Championship and the 2011 Masters. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (snooker)

FYI

 – Page relocated. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker/Manual and style to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (snooker) to bring it into line with the naming conventions for other manuals of style. Hope nobody minds, but it is probably better that we follow the same naming procedures in case other editors are looking for it. I've added a link to it to the Project page under "guidelines". Betty Logan (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

John Higgins (snooker player) suspension dispute.

Resolved

 – Just a FYI. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 09:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute over the John_Higgins_(snooker_player)#Suspension section. It is currently locked, so some impartial viewpoints are required. The main points are over the level of detail and the balance of the article. I believe it is important that all the interested parties are neutrally represented without the article "taking a side". It would be good if a couple of editors could pitch in to come up with a "consensus" version. The discussion is at Talk:John Higgins (snooker player)#Content removal from the "Suspension" section. Betty Logan (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

World Snooker profile templates

Resolved

 – Templates using the old format were corrected. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 22:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Have modified {{World Snooker}} and {{WSfast}} because, World Snooker has modified it's homepage. Now it needs one new parameter, which can active, senior or past. {{World Snooker|active|id=13165~2234637,00}} will produce this on the Ronnie O'Sullivan article: "Official player profile of Ronnie O'Sullivan". wst.tv. World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association. "Tour Players" section., more at {{World Snooker/doc}}. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have created a tracking category for outdated World Snooker templates (Category:Outdated World Snooker templates). Hope it helps updating the template. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 12:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

2009 Six-red World Championship and 888sport.com Six-red World Championship merge

Resolved

 – Just a FYI. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 20:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion about merging these two articles at Talk:888sport.com Six-red World Championship. The merge is agreed by all parties, but the point of contention is which way around it is done. At the moment there are only three editors involved in the discussion so a few more eopinions would be welcome. Betty Logan (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Neil Robertson (snooker player)

Resolved

 – Just a FYI. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 00:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The edit war over whether the article should use "British Isles" or "United Kingdom and Ireland" doesn't show any sign of abating: [1]. Both lots of terminology are used by the article, and used synonymously within the same context, and the dispute is over which to use. The discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere so impartial views are needed. Betty Logan (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible problem editor

Resolved

 – Editor was indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

An editor User:Jimmyson88 has been violating WP:OVERLINK on snooker articles, adding sources into leads when the information is already sourced in articles, and reiterating information that is already present. He might just be a novice editor in which case we should assist him, but another editor has identified him as a WP:SOCK: [2] It is best to keep a close eye on his edits to the snooker articles until it is determined one way or the other. Betty Logan (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Do keep in mind that leads are supposed to be summaries of articles, not journalistic style lead-in paragraphs, so if he's "reiterating information" in the lead, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Agreed that this shouldn't be done in main prose, and that sources need not be reiterated in the lead, unless a particular fact is controversial. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 16:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I made the problem clear. Obviously a lead is going to include content from the main article, but the lead shouldn't include the content twice over. It was mainly edits like this I was drawing attention to. In this particular case he added to the lead that Higgins had won the world championship four times, when it already stated that. There was overlinking too and some other strange edits (albeit not on the snooker articles) which made me believe the problem might be more than inexperience. The truth is we don't have many editors on the snooker project so we're not going to catch all the unconstructive edits, so I thought it would be best to give a heads up here. Betty Logan (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Davis/GA1

Resolved

 – Closed as "not listed" as a GA, due to reliance on a self-published source.

Steve Davis is going through a GA review, and is on hold for 14 days to allow time to deal with the issues listed on the review page. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 13:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Northern Ireland/Sport country

Resolved

 – Armbrust fixed it

Is there any particular reason why the Northern Ireland players don't have their "sport country" listed in their profiles? Betty Logan (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I know the answer. The infoboxes were updated in the end of April, and |Nationality= was replaced with |Sport country=. I made this with AWB and after that, the "Nationality" parameter was removed from the code of the infobox. It looks like I forgot to update the infoboxes for snooker players from Northern Ireland, and they used a non-existent parameter. Now done. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 15:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That explains it, I was just wondering if there had been further disputes over the NI players, because changing the parameter to "sport country" was partly to get around that problem. Glad to know there isn't any disputes going on. Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Has this been fixed on the affected articles? If so, this is a good candidate for {{Resolved}} so people know not to waste time looking for something to repair. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 16:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Popular pages feature

FYI

 – Upcoming project feature.

I've put in a request that this project's pages be indexed by Mr.Z-man's "Popular Pages" tool (see User:Mr.Z-man/Popular pages FAQ). It generates a list of project articles by how often they are visited. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Custom watchlists for snooker!

FYI

 – New project features now "live".

How cool! Bot author tedder (talk · contribs) has come up with some cool stuff that helps us out. It is now trivially easy to watch all snooker edits from some custom watchlists. I've added them to the project nav banner (see top of WP:SNOOKER, etc.), but you might want to integrate them into your own stuff (Firefox sidebar, whatever). These all even help find pages you should be watching but aren't, and to identify new articles you haven't seen and watchlisted yet, since "Changes to pages on your watchlist are shown in bold", and others aren't.

• Watchlist for all changes to snooker articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangesLinked&target=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Snooker%2FAdmin&hidemyself=1&hideminor=0&hidebots=0&days=30&limit=500

You can tweak the hideminor=, hidebots=, days= and limit= of course. This list is made possible by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker/Admin page cread by tedder's bot. It picks up transcluded templates sometimes; not sure there's a way around that.

• Watchlist for all changes to snooker non-articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangesLinked&target=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Snooker%2FAdmin2&hidemyself=1&hideminor=0&hidebots=0&days=30&limit=500

You can tweak the hideminor=, hidebots=, days= and limit= of course. This list is made possible by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker/Admin2 page cread by tedder's bot. It picks up transcluded templates sometimes; not sure there's a way around that.

• Watchlist for all changes to snooker talk pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangesLinked&target=Category:All_snooker_pages&hidemyself=1&hideminor=0&hidebots=0&days=30&limit=500

This one's just based on a category, and picks up a few non-"Talk:" items in there sometimes.

• Cue sports equivalents, minus snooker:

articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangesLinked&target=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Cue_sports%2FAdmin&hidemyself=1&hideminor=0&hidebots=0&days=30&limit=500

non-articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangesLinked&target=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Cue_sports%2FAdmin2&hidemyself=1&hideminor=0&hidebots=0&days=30&limit=500

talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangesLinked&target=Category:All_cue_sports_pages_minus_snooker&hidemyself=1&hideminor=0&hidebots=0&days=30&limit=500

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

CueTracker... Spam or not?

Resolved

 – Not spam.

There is a debate about adding CueTracker player profiles to player articles as external links. Some editors think they constitute spam, others think they are valid external links. Here is an example], and the relevant policies are Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#cuetracker.net. Betty Logan (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I am the owner of this site, and it was my adding of several player and season links that sparked the debate. Personally, I feel the statistics etc. on the website add a lot of information, and since I personally have nothing to gain from people visiting the site I don't see why they would be considered spam. I therefore feel it is valid to add these links. I am also confused as to what, if anything, was decided. Can the links be added or not? (Visionaire87 (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

• Support mass addition of the link, as it contains valuable information, which couldn't been added due to various Wikipedia policies. For example the addition of every match result of player would violate WP:NOT#STATS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 13:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. The links include statistical information that is not normally included in player articles but will still be of interest to readers. Betty Logan (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support in principle, but maybe not yet. I'm not totally convinced that we should link to the site while it's still in its development stages since that might risk presenting incomplete information to readers as fact (this, for instance, is a long way off the real figures). But when it is complete, it will be a useful resource and should meet every bullet point at WP:EL, so I would fully support linking to it then. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Alzarian16: good point, would it help if, where it now says the copyright at the bottom, I add a link to the page which explains that the database is still being added to? It takes quite a bit of work to add all of this in as you will understand, but I am getting through it fairly quickly due to having a 2,5 hour one-way commute. The reason I released it already is that it already presents complete data for the more recent seasons (I am adding about a season a week), and I don't want to sit on it until all the content is in. In short, I believe it is already a valuable resource, which will only increase. (Visionaire87 (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC))
    • I agree that releasing it early was reasonable, and what you already have is pretty impressive. Linking to an explanation page is a good idea too. However, I think the biggest problem is the wording "all-time", which implies that it covers everything. Could this be changed to something like "all available" to make the situation clearer? If that happens I would support its addition. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I think I will leave the actual title as it is to not disturb the formatting of the page, but I will add a small line under the title stating that it is based on what is currently there, and a link to an explanation. I will try and do this somewhere this weekend. Thanks for the suggestion, I'd actually been thinking to myself that it's not very factually correct! (Visionaire87 (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC))
        • This link has now been added! (Visionaire87 (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC))
• There is also problem how you can' the groups of the Championship League, for example there. Every CL tournament consists of 8 groups, but it's only one tournaments and not eight and only winner of the "Winners group" is called defending champion. EXPAND: There is also a problem, that walkovers are counted as lost matches in the stats. for example there the player has 1 win, 1 w/o win and 1 lost, but the stats say 1 won, 2 lost. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 11:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The CL I will think about, I will probably merge them into one tournament like you say, but will have to think about how I will display it. What do you mean with the walkover example? I have worked it out so walkovers do not count towards the stats, but you have linked to John Higgins' page? Could you give the exact place where you see the walkover count as a loss? (Visionaire87 (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC))
    • Oops, wrong link, but it looks like its good now. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 00:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
      • The Championship League tournaments have now been merged. I will recalculate the prize money soon, as I have to do that by hand. (Visionaire87 (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

By the way, it seems the matter at Wikipedia:Spam has now been closed. If anyone thinks changes should be made before links can be added, please let me know. I'm still working on adding results every day, and have found complete or near-complete sources for pretty much all of modern professional snooker's history. Suggestions, comments and/or complaints always welcome. (Visionaire87 (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC))

I'm marking this as "Resolved: Not spam", per the general consensus here and the removal of the debate at WT:SPAM. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 16:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ranking point tables

Some alterations have been made to the table code which has had an adverse effect at Snooker world ranking points 2011/2012. The table has been widened and goes off the side of the page. In Firefox this is ok because you can scroll along the chart, but in Internet Explorer 8 I'm not getting a scroll bar at the bottom, meaning I can't see the rest of the chart with it. The bug has been reported at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31438, but I was wondering if the IE problems are unique to my browser settings, or if they affect everyody using Internet Explorer. If your screen is big enough to show all the table try altering the zoom ratio so it goes off the screen, and then see if you can scroll along. Betty Logan (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No scroll bar for me too in Internet Explorer 8. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 09:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Controversy: Minor ranking tournaments costing players money; O'Sullivan speaks against

This BBC article and others on the topic will be good sources. This issue should be covered at World Snooker, Snooker world rankings, Ronnie O'Sullivan and Portal:Snooker, at the very least. This is one of the bigger controversies to come up in snooker in a while. I'll leave it to the more regular snooker editors to tackle this; I still have my hands full with a lot of needed improvements to the pool and basic cue sports articles (even pages like billiard table and billiard ball still need work). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the most appropriate place to cover it would be the World Snooker Tour article and the Players Tour Championship article. The World Snooker article is basically just decribing the governing body (not the tour structure) and the world rankings article is basically about how the rankings operate. The criticism is really directed at the secondary tour as a whole, rather than just one aspect. I can sort it out over the weekend. Betty Logan (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This is now covered at the Players Tour Championship article. I have decided against inlcuding it at the World Snooker Tour article since the criticism is directed entirely at the PTC format, not the establishment of a secondary tour. If it spills over into being something more fundamental than prize money and expenses i.e. the knock on effect on tour qualification, then we can cover that aspect on the tour article when it happens. Anyway, it's covered through several sources and is balanced by pro and against opinion, with a response by World Snooker. PS. Thanks to Armbrust too—I had come to add in the sources after getting home (having written it up earlier) to find it completely sourced! Betty Logan (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Chris Turner

Following the unfortunate death of Chris Turner who runs the Snooker Archive (http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Home.html) we have a slight problem. We use his archive to source many articles, so we don't really want to lose his information. If he pays a monthly fee to host his site it could come down in a matter of days. I've checked it on Wayback machine and there are two notable sections that aren't backed up: the Historical World Rankings [3] which explains the origins of the ranking system and has top 32 lists going back to the original order of Merit, and most of the player profiles [4] which are particularly useful to the Snooker Project. I have tried to webcite the pages not on Wayback but I can't get Webcite to work on his site. If anyone can get this information archived it would be of great benefit to us. Betty Logan (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how accurate this is, but according to it the site will not disappear. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 20:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I just found this by searching archived pages of Global Snooker Centre at Wayback Machine, written by Chris Turner. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 01:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I happen to know the person who is taking over the site it was meant to go live on boxing day 2011, he is the same guy who runs http://www.thesnookerforum.com/ hopefully it will go live soon, but it will not disappear century table needs updating as nigel bond, ian mcculloch (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the new site will go ever online. Off course they are free to prove me wrong. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 21:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

century table needs updating as nigel bond, ian mcculloch, michael holt and barry hawkins all crossed over 100 since the death of Chris (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source than feel free to update it. (BTW most blogs are not reliable.) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 21:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Just check the centuries in the tournaments since Chris' death they are on wiki in each tournaments century tables (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Snooker leagues

FYI

 – The CfD should run 21–28 November.

Category:Snooker leagues, which is within the scope of this project, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 14:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Statistics board

You have seen statistics board on articles of the PDC World Championship, the Players Championship Finals, the World Matchplay, European Championship and the World Grand Prix. Well instead of century breaks, how about this?

Player	Played	Frames Won	Frames Lost	Points Scored	Points Conceded	50+	100+	High Break

What do you think? Wonderwizard (talk) 21:13, December 20 2011 (UTC)

Well I think, that there are isn't even one reliable source where we can gather the "Points Scored", "Points Conceded", "50+" and "High Break" if it is lower than 100, thus such a section would be completely unnecessary and unmaintainable. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 06:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOT#STATS. That would almost certainly violate the "Excessive listings of statistics" policy, as well as verifiability policy. Wikipedia generally and snooker articles more than most are already too bogged down in statistical trivia. See top section on this talk page for far more important basic snooker info and history things to fix, and the innumerable {{citation needed}} tags in snooker bio articles. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hot articles subscription

FYI

Your Hot articles subscription is complete. The daily list can be found here. Feel free to integrate this into your WikiProject page however you like by adding the WikiText {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker/Hot articles}}. Kaldari (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example:

174 edits	2024 World Snooker Championship
69 edits	Kyren Wilson
43 edits	Jak Jones
23 edits	World Snooker Championship
11 edits	Stuart Bingham
9 edits	List of world number one snooker players
8 edits	David Gilbert (snooker player)
7 edits	Paul Collier (snooker referee)
7 edits	Stephen Lee (snooker player)
4 edits	2024 Q School

These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last three days. Last updated 7 May 2024 by HotArticlesBot.

Premier league 2011

Hi i just want to know does anybody have a problem with me adding ronnie osullivan's premier league win in 2011?.people are putting it in as a non ranking event and it is being deleted by people who dont want it in that section.i want to add it the wins section as it is a major invitational trophy.i have consulted with snooker statisticians david hendon and the late chris turner and they both count is as a snooker tournament even though the rules were slightly different.i have a few ideas how to add it does anybody object ?.thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.154.234 (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Opinion and marketing doesn't determine whether an event is a "snooker" event or not, if it's not played in accordance with the 15 red rule book it is a different game, which I believe is now the case with the Premier League since it has revoked the miss rule. If the rule is incorporated into the official rules then that's a different story, but until then it has to be treated separately. That said, I have no objection to it being covered on the article since it is a biography so should cover all his professional achievements, and he competed in the Premier League in his capacity as professional snooker player. I suggest creating an extra section called "Cue sport finals" or something and adding the latest Premier League title there, but it shouldn't be added to his official title count, which only counts 15 reds rules snooker. Betty Logan (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

i agree with betty it should be included in the wins section.although its a tricky one because the centuries made in this tournament have been included in players totals for this season,so it is really a 15 red pro event even though the rules differ.i think a "cue sports finals" is a bit vague but we can throw some ideas out there.if people cant agree on one i thought maybe "other format wins" or something maybe like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.154.235 (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think "Variant format finals" would be better (if there is a need for such a section). Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a similar approach to what we have here: Steve_Davis#Other_sports. We don't really want to document every mickey mouse event he's ever played in, but something like Power Snooker which is on a major TV channel is probably more notable than a PTC event from a biography perspective, if not from a snooker one. At the moment the article doesn't even mention the Power Snooker events, so if we actually had a section where we could briefly cover other notable events he participates in then I think that would probably stop people repeatedly adding the event, which they do in good faith because they think they are improving the article. Betty Logan (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

i also think there should be a section added for this years premier leagu win as i had noticed it was missing off ronnies page.i dont think the power snooker events should be included at all as this is a totally different game with different scoring.even though the premier league had different rules it is still a 15red tournament.i dont think "variant format finals" is wise it opens the door for power snooker to be added which as i said i dont think should be included.as a previous poster wrote other format finals,i think would be the best.Snookerfan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.196.41 (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If the Premier League should be placed in the Tournament wins section, than Power Snooker shouldn't be left out. Both are variant tournament, and we shouldn't describe how many variation of the rules makes it worth to include an event. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

i think the premier league should be included in the career finals section.it is a major tournament armbust power snooker is a different game with different scoring than normal snooker.the premier league still uses the same scoring system with 15 reds.also as the person pointed out who posted this topic centuries scored in the premier league count towards a players career total,so how it is the same as power snooker ?.it is totally different.the question was asked should premier league be added i say yes.power snooker maybe that should be another topic placed on this site.just a taughtpg147 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.252.204 (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Premier League is probably included in the stats by convention because it is a long-running tournament, but it still doesn't alter the fact that from this season it no longer complies with the official rules. An event either fully applies the official rules or it doesn't, and from this season the PL doesn't; I have no problem with covering such events, but you can't really separate the new PL format from Power Snooker or any of the other variant formats they've come up with, like 6 ball and shoot-out. Betty Logan (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Template changes

There has been a major dispute over the snooker templates over the last week. The main point of contention has been the {{Snooker world rankings}} template, but the dispute has spread to the following templates too: Templates edits 26–28 March (edits by: User:Frietjes and User:Armbrust).

• The first thing I would like to request is that editors refrain from making further alterations or reverts to the templates so the issue can be resolved via consensus.

The dispute

The main point of contention, as I understand, is the use of the 'invisibility' span in the nav boxes: [5]. The point of the whitespace was to organise the template by decades: with whitespace & without whitespace. The argument against using the invisibility span is that line wraps cause disalignment on some browsers (see Template talk:Snooker world rankings). Obviously this being the case then I agree we need an alternative solution.

The solutions

1. The simplest solution is simply not to break down by decade. In the rankings article this solution would look like [6], and in a tournament article it would look like [7].
2. Using {{Navbox years}}. This is deployed on a large number of sport articles, including tennis. As an example, the template used on the Wimbledon tennis Championships article can be seen at {{Wimbledon tournaments}}. Armbrust subsequently implemented this solution on a number of the articles (see [8] for example) but his edits were all subsequently reverted.
3. Fully representing all the years/seasons in each decade, but greying out the ones that are not applicable: [9]

Discussion

• Option 2 (Navbox years) – I can live with all three solutions, but my preference is for the second option. I like the navboxes organised by decade on an aesthetic level, and while option 3 does this I feel it is somewhat redundant adding years that are not applicable. Betty Logan (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: just for clarification: what happens if in one year wasn't played in Option 2 (as mentioned in option 3 - graying out? not displaying?) mabdul 02:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess either would be ok, but the example in the template uses "NH" to signify "Not held": {{Navbox years}}. That would be consistent with the player performance tables where we simply mark gaps as "Not held": Ronnie O'Sullivan#Performance and rankings timeline. Betty Logan (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Option 2 (Navbox years) - If the invisibility span shouldn't used, than Navbox years is the best option to break the results down by decade. This method is used on more than 200 other templates for tennis tournaments too (ATP & WTA.) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Option 1 is the best. There is no way to make any of the other options work well across a wide variety of web browsers and screen readers. The large white space gaps are unnecessary, especially when there is only one entry in a decade, and looks horrid on narrow displays (see here). The version here is particularly bad, since you have 2000 listed twice with no explanation (and all the red links). The right alignment here is pointless, since there are no other decades. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Option 3, prefer with the decades aligning. option 2 is no good as it is not a full width navbox and does not look good when mixed with other boxes of a different width. Keith D (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Option 1 is the best, on most snooker templates anyway. Tournaments that have been played every year, for a long time, such as The Masters could possibly use Option 2, but a majority of snooker tournaments have been on-and-off, changed names and locations, or haven't been played long enough to be broken down by decade. For instance, the Snooker Shoot-out template looks just silly, and shouldn't be arranged by decade. Same goes for Wuxi Classic template, or German Masters template, for instance. It's simply NOT easier to find the right year, just because the years are on different lines with lots of white space between them. Also, the World Snooker Championship template is a bit "too high", too white and could be broken down by "eras", instead of decades, like this. Bellatrix9 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Bellatrix9's reasoning. Frietjes (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 World Snooker Championship

FYI

There is dispute regarding the format of the "Notable moments" section and the article is now fully protected. See the relevant discussion there: Talk:2012 World Snooker Championship. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 23:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

WP Snooker in the Signpost

FYI

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Snooker for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wildcard earnings

Just a quick question. The prize money breakdowns for the various tournaments don't mention the Wild card rounds. Do the players who are defeated in the wild card round (either wild cards or otherwise) earn prize money, and if so, how much? Daperry001 (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The way it worked under the previous board was the wildcards don't earn any prize money, only the pro players did. Ding's manager complained about it in 2005 when Ding won the China Open as a wildcard and didn't see a penny. A pro player who loses in the wildcard round or at the last 32 stage would still get last 32 money. I'm not sure how it works now, World Snooker aren't very specific about it on their site, but it would better if we could clarify it. Betty Logan (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

World rankings needs update

Resolved

 – Information added to article. Betty Logan (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Snooker world rankings needs to be updated. This was just now (5 min. ago) posted to Facebook and Twitter by World Snooker's official accounts on these services: "The world rankings will be replaced by a rolling prize money list from 2014/15 http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0,,13165~2903595,00.html Let us know your views!" The URL goes to: There's also "Updated world rankings and order of merit http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0,,13165~2902948,00.html". — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Premier League 2011 status on wikipedia

Hi i would like to start a talk about the status of the premier league 2011.i want to change this event to non ranking status. it says on wiki that it is a variant event.some people claim it is a variant event because of the miss rule change and the shoot out frame being used in the group stage if matches needed a 5th and final frame to decide it.i have contacted world snooker, premier league and leading snooker statisticians including the respected dave hendon.statisticians and world snooker are still classing this event as a non ranking event even with the changes as in previous years.world snooker told me all century breaks made in this event counted towards players career totals and matches played in this event would be counted in players head to head records,neither of these would occur if this was regarded as a snooker variant event.world snooker told me they are in the process of creating head to head profiles.i have email evidence of my chats with these sources to back up my claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.154.217 (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

World Snooker may well count the event for statistical purposes (and if it does, those same stats such as centuries/maximums/head to heads will also be included in the analogous stats on Wikipedia) but that doesn't alter the underlying fact the event used a variant set of rules. To present the event as using the same set of rules used in normal events would be a misrepresentation of the facts. Even World Snooker explicitly acknowledges the "shoot out" rules as "alternative snooker" (which the Premier League implemented that year) in its own rule book (p. 33). Betty Logan (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

hi betty i understand what you are saying but world snooker the premier league and leading statisticians are all still classing it as a non ranking event.world snooker are saying its a non ranking event with a few tweaks and not a variant event.they are running the game and i think how they class the event should be respected and implemented regardless of what our opinion are.they should have the final say in my opinion. Regards trevor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.154.220 (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC) i agree with trevor im also not happy with the status of this event.if world snooker and statisticians are happy that this event should still be regarded as a non ranking event.i would also like to see it changed back to that section on wikipedia thats just my opinion.Snookerfan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.173.96 (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

World Snooker's own rulebook defines formats played under Shoot-out rules (which the 2011 event was) as "alternative snooker". The format has reverted back to the standard format for this season, which is probably why it now refers to it is as a 'standard' snooker event. Wikipedia also treats all Premier League events (outside 2011) as normal snooker tournaments. I really don't see what the big deal is here, it is a demonstrable fact that the 2011 event was played under a different set of rules, and all Wikipedia does is acknowledge that. Betty Logan (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Betty Logan, according to World Snooker's own rule book this events used the "alternative snooker" rules, and thus it can't be classified as snooker. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 20:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

hi but betty and armbrust the shoot out frame was not always in operation in this event only in the event of a match going 2-2.therefore it was more like a sudden death shoot out.if trevor says he contacted world snooker and they claim they still regard it as a non ranking event i dont see why you have to argue with their rules or decision.i also support the change it should be non ranking like in other years if century break and head to heads count its not a variant.PG147 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.114.169.239 (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't change the fact, that the miss rule was also changed, meaning that a player had three attempts to make legal contact with the ball on or otherwise ball in hand was given to the incoming player anywhere on the table. Also I don't any evidence, that Trevor really had contacted World Snooker and isn't just pushing his point of view. (BTW I'm also not sure, that the three commenting IP's are not the same person.) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 21:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

If the shoot-out rules were invoked at any stage of the event then its rules played a part in determining the outcome of the tournament. If World Snooker genuinely did believe that the Shoot-out format should count as a standard rules event, then their rule book would reflect that, but as it is they have a separate section for it and brand it as "alternative snooker". Also, as Armbrust points out the miss rule was also revoked after three attempts which contradicts the "official" rules of the game. Snooker statisticians like Hendon probably count it in their stats since it was an aberration in an established event; of course, they are entitled to their point of view, but ultimately the WPBSA alone determines what the professional rules of the game are and it brands the shoot-out rules as "alternative snooker". We would be blatantly misrepresenting the event if we just ignore the fact it was played under different rules. Betty Logan (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

the point being missed by people on here arguing about rules is that this person claims world snooker have said "this is a non-ranking event with some tweaks ie. the miss rule and the shoot out frame which was not used in all matches.they aknowledge there were some differences but if they label the event that way we could all stay here arguing all day it will not change a thing.did anyone ask for evidence ?.Ronnie79 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.127.21 (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC) i forgot to say if people want to change this i have no problem with it.people arearguing about handbooks and stuff but if world snooker say this is the way it is i am happy enough to go with that.ronnie79 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.127.21 (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

i am glad this has been brought to our attention.in fairness david hendon is well respected a snooker statistician,and he provides stats for bbc and eurosport.i actually think we should listen to people like him.i think this is a non ranking event.ok it has a few quirks but if statisticians and world snooker are claiming it is still a non ranker it should be edited into that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.246.177 (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any proof, that "statisticians and world snooker are claiming it is still a non ranker"? Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 09:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I tried to edit this tournament at the start.it is silly to class it different to other years even with these changes.i would support a change if people want it.i agree if centuries and head to head count it can't be a variant.kevin k — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.34.217 (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any proof, that "centuries and head to head count" from this event? Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 09:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

More to the point do you have any proof that World Snooker regard it as standard non-ranking event? That keeps being reiterated but I have checked the site and found nothing. World Snooker as a rule don't cover the Premier League since it is a Matchroom event, so the only evidence we have so far of teh WSA's position is the rule book, which categorises the rules used as "alternative snooker". If World Snooker maintained a list of non-ranking titles that it officially recognises and included the 2011 Premier League event then that would be something verifiable and conclusive, but I don't see any evidence that backs up your stance. Betty Logan (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

betty what are you talking about with rulebook nonsence.that means nothing.if you actually go on to the world snooker website it lists all the events that are not ranking events under the banner "Invitation Events".it includes all of last seasons events so what are you talking about ?.the premier league is there.if the person that started this talk produces these emails he claims to have is that enough to change this event ?. also i should have added when ronnie osullivans premier league wins are calculated it totals 10 wins.according to armburst and betty logan it is 9 wins and 1 using variant rules.that is absolute nonsence.it is 10 wins simple as that. we need evidence to sort this once and for all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.127.21 (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything as the Shoot-Out is listed there and it clearly isn't a snooker tournament. The e-mails also don't prove anything as they are unpublished material. Also O'Sullivan has won the Premier League 10 times, but the 10th wasn't a snooker tournament. This is similar to the case with Steve Davis and the UK Championship. Davis has won the UK Championship 6 times, but only 4 times as ranking tournament. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 15:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Armbrust it is not similar at all what are you talking about.this is totally different than steve davis winning 6 uk titles ranking or non ranking.they are all regarded pro titles.you are not counting one of ronnie's professional wins because as a variant is not a proper tournament.also its not up to you to judge if emails can be used.at the start you wanted to see them now you say they are not good enough.from my interpratation you do not want evidence to change this event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.127.21 (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC) betty also i just taught, you say it cannot be regarded as a non ranking event because it does not play to the normal set of rules.well if that was the case the status would have changed when the shot clock was introduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.127.21 (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The shotclock was a tournament rule, and the official rules of snooker still applied in their entirety, so basically the other shotclock events were professional snooker with a shotclock. The 2011 event actively revoked a part of the rule book so the rules of professional snooker didn't fully apply, and adopted rules known as "alternative snooker" in their place. Ultimately though, World Snooker own the copyrght on the professional rules, so if they acknowledge the event as a professional title then I'm happy to concede the point; but so far you have not presented us with any evidence of how World Snooker regard the 2011 event. Their rule book seems to indirectly discount it by not counting the Shoot-out format as professional snooker, and that's what we go by when categorizing these events, unless World Snooker themselves explicitly adopt an official stance. Betty Logan (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the use of flag icons for sportspeople

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

An RfC discussion about the MOS:FLAG restriction on the use of flag icons for sportspeople has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. We invite all interested participants to provide their opinion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Snooker venues

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Category:Snooker venues, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 10:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

New snooker archive

Apparently Chris Turner's Snooker archive has been archived by the UK Web Archive at http://www.webarchive.org.uk/ukwa/target/59113534. This is good news, because since his passing the site could be taken down at some point, and Webcite and Wayback are not guaranteed to preserve everything. If links die it could be useful. It's looks fairly complete although I haven't checked every page. Betty Logan (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

At one day the website seemed to vanish, and I have added archiveurls to (AFAIK) every use of the website. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

New sports related IRC channel.

There is now an WP:IRC channel for collaboration between editors in various sports WikiProjects. It's located at #wikipedia-en-sports ^connect. Thanks Secret ^account 03:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Dutchsnookerfan

Resolved

 – Editor misunderstood their purpose. It looks like it has been sorted now.

Could someone take a look at Dutchsnookerfan (talk · contribs). He adds constantly unnecessary flags to the Snooker season 2013/2014 article. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Cuegloss

The {{Cuegloss}} template was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_26#Template:Cuegloss. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Mark Davis / Marc Davis

We have a number of articles linking to Marc Davis (snooker player). Is this a different person to Mark Davis (snooker player), an accepted variation on his name, or just a mis-spelling? - TB (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

They are two different persons. Mark Davis is English and Marc Davis is Scottish. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Snooker venues

Category:Snooker venues, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox snooker player

There is a dispute about Template:Infobox snooker player. The discussion is at Template talk:Infobox snooker player#Recent changes. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)