Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archive 7

CfD notice: Snooker venues

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

For at least the third time, Category:Snooker venues is at CfD. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 November 29#Category:Snooker venues.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Closed as 'keep' 1 January 2017. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

CueTracker player template not working

{{CueTracker player}} was broken, as the URLs and IDs sued have changed, so I've disabled it. Please see its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hossein Vafae Ayouri

There is a proposal to rename Hossein Vafaei to Hossein Vafaei Ayouri at Talk:Hossein_Vafaei#Requested_move_25_February_2017. Betty Logan (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Variant/alternative formats

Several tournaments (mainly the Shoot-Out and the 2011 Premier League) were played under an alternative set of rules and as such have always been catalogued as "variant format" events in articles about players. This last year an editor has been removing this distinction from the result tables. Personally I feel we are losing an important distinction between the different types of events. The full discussion is at Talk:Ronnie_O'Sullivan#2011_Premier_League. Betty Logan (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Betty you said last night the 2016 shootout was a non ranking event prior to ranking status being introduced this season31.200.132.199 (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

2017 World Snooker Championship

Hi! I apologize if I am going about this the wrong way. I am currently involved in an "edit war" and have just found out that I have broken the "three-revert-rule". The edit war pertains to a dispute over whether certain information is relevant to Judd Trump's loss to Rory McLeod yesterday at the world championship. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_World_Snooker_Championship&action=history I am not aware of the exact standards for the information typically accompanying a loss, but I do feel that including the quotes (as found in the edit history) serve only to ridicule Judd Trump. Nuked (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red online editathon on sports

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2017 worldwide online editathon. Participation is welcome in any language.
		"Sports"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest World Rankings - Ali Carter

Does anyone know why Ali Carter has 0 ranking points (ranked 125) here: http://www.worldsnooker.com/rankings/world-rankings/ (as I write this) when we have him at 12 here: Snooker world rankings 2016/2017. I have updated Template:Infobox snooker player/rankings using Snooker world rankings 2016/2017, but stand to be corrected. Nigej (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like World Snooker made an error. According to your link he's at #12 now. Poor guy never seems to catch a break. Betty Logan (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep. All sorted now. Something to do with using Ali not Allister, I suspect. Nigej (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

1989 Hong Kong Snooker Gold Cup

Hi I saw a video of the above on YouTube. The final featured Steve Davis and Alex Higgins it seemed to be covered live by Eurosport. The video only shows the match with Davis leading 4-1. Does anyone know where we can find information on this event please 31.200.137.23 (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

There were two ranking events at the start of the Snooker season 1989/1990, in Hong Kong and Thailand. Davis didn't play in either (I think) but The Times for 24 January 1989 says "Davis .. confirmed that he would play in a minor tournament, promoted by Barry Hearn, his manager, immediately after those events." The Times for 4 September 1989 simply has a score "HONG KONG: International Tournament: Final S Davis bt A Higgins, 6-3" which is presumably the event you are referring to. Nigej (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Where is the link that you are referring to please ?.31.200.137.23 (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Not a link at all. Accessed through my local library. You may be able to do the same. References are not necessarily accessible online, old-fashioned references are still acceptable. Use: <ref>{{cite news |newspaper=The Times |date=4 September 1989 |page=39 |title=For the record – Snooker}}</ref> to reference the 6-3 result, if you want to and are convinced it's the same event. Nigej (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

2010 EPTC Plate Events 1–6

I found info on these 6 events with winners and runners-up. There is no mention of these on Wikipedia. Will I or can I add them as non-ranking events on Wikipedia?. 31.200.137.23 (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• The articles already exist, see {{Snooker season 2010/2011}} and Snooker season 2010/2011. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Those are not the events I am referring to. I am talking about the Plate events which were played during the European events. Do you understand ?. 178.167.207.183 (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability

An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you use a library source to add an event to Wikipedia?.

Hi I would just like to know can you source the above to add an event or not please ?. 178.167.129.133 (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean but if you're talking about the general principle of using stuff in libraries see: Wikipedia:INDICATEAVAIL "If your source is not available online, it should be available in reputable libraries, archives, or collections." Nigej (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

World Seniors Events in 2017/2018 season

Hi I want a discussion on the above. Jason Francis announced 4 World Seniors Events for this season UK Seniors. Seniors Masters, Seniors Irish Masters and of course the World Seniors. My question is will we add these as non-ranking events or will a World Seniors Tour section be created there is already some confusion among editors on here. Any thoughts please ?. 92.251.202.125 (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Per sources, the new World Seniors Tour was announced [1], so an article must reflect the real situation. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not the question I asked ! 92.251.220.53 (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Eden Sharav nationality Scotland/Israel

The teams for this year's world cup have been announced and Eden Sharav is representing Israel should we change his nationality on Wikipedia?. 92.251.169.68 (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

World Snooker has his nationality down as Scottish so we should probably keep it as that. It is not unusual for players to be eligible for more than country through parents or grandparents. The only reason he is probably playing for Israel is probably because he isn't good enough to play for Scotland, and if he were world number 1 he'd probably be playing for Scotland. We should keep an eye on it though. Betty Logan (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

What about the World Seniors Events ?, 92.251.158.155 (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

There's RS out there that he's changed nationality. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

What is the source ?. 31.200.130.228 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

There are a few at/near the top of this, for example. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This interview qualifies his Scottish/Israeli heritage, but it doesn't explicitly state he has changed his nationality. Obviously if he has we should update the relevant articles but we should avoid jumping to conclusions. He is obviously eligible to play for both Scotland and Israel but World Snooker still have his nationality down as "Scottish". I don't think we should update his status purely on the basis he is playing for the Israeli team, unless we have a credible source he has actually changed his nationality. Even if he has taken Israeli citizenship he probably holds dual citizenship anyway, so I think we should hold back until we get more information. Betty Logan (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to your view, but when he competes for Israel in the World Cup later this season, are we really going to put a Saltire agaisnt his name? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If the 2015 World Cup (snooker) article is anything to go by the flags only go next to the countries. We can just add a note next to Sharav's name to state he is representing Israel in this event. The problem is we are getting contradictory information from World Snooker because while he is representing Israel in the World Cup they still have a Saltire next to his name on their Tour list. I have no dog in this race; World Snooker could just be lagging with their updates (I am still waiting on a new ranking list) and Sharav's nationality may be updated to Israeli in due course, but I think we should just accept it is an open question at this point. Betty Logan (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Sensible. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Betty Logan looks like the new rankings are out, btw, along with a barely comprehensible statement about the ITC holders. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Actually, while I have somebody active on this page could I get a second (third?) opinion at Talk:List_of_world_number-one_snooker_players#Changes_from_seasons_to_weeks_in_the_Duration_column. An editor has twice made an edit I don't agree with. I am not exactly thrilled with the version I have reverted to to be honest but it seems to me the recent edits are exacerbating the existing problems. I have suggested some alternatives and would like to get some input from other snooker editors. Betty Logan (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done And feel free to stop by Talk:Snooker_season_2017/2018#Colours_in_table yourself! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong Masters draw made

Hi can someone create an event page for this on the 17/18 season page please the quarter finals have been announced.178.167.152.117 (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone ever answer on this bloody page 92.251.157.92 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I have created a redirect at Hong Kong Masters so the page can now be edited. Betty Logan (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

How that only sends you to 17/18 season page I don't understand? 92.251.157.92 (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

If you click on this link you will be able to edit the page. Betty Logan (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

To be honest I haven't a clue how to create a page I have never done it that why I asked on here. 92.251.228.232 (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone createa page for this event the draw has been made in know it if that helps anyone ?. 92.251.142.177 (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Rename it to the 2017 Hong Kong Masters. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I didn't leave a redirect as the original page should be for the overall tournament. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Future Paul Hunter Classics

I recently created the page for this year's event, and in doing so had to overcome a blacklisting issue, using my admin tools.

Pleased to tell you that thanks to Tavix, in future, anyone will be able to create a page for one of these tournaments. --15:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC) (Sorry, that was me failing to sign properly --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC))

Will the new World Seniors Tour

Be classed as non-ranking events or do we know yet. Jason Francis mentioned something about ranking lists for amateur players only not the former players. Does anyone know anything about this ?,92.251.130.4 (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone know how these will be classed ? 178.167.192.161 (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Rankings pre and post 2017 Riga Masters

I have added a "Revision 2" column to Snooker world rankings 2017/2018 which reflects the post-2017 Riga Masters rankings (I hope) and I have changed Template:Infobox snooker player/rankings to reflect this. I've just added the 105 players with some money to Template:Infobox snooker player/rankings, ignoring the remaining 26 who have no official money at the moment, so that no "current ranking" appears in the infobox for, say, Joe Swail. I have currently left the "Revision 1" column in Snooker world rankings 2017/2018 unchanged, although it seems from Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 and its talk page that it ought to be updated to reflect the pre-Riga Masters situation rather than the post-2017 World Championship situation. http://www.worldsnooker.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/World-Rankings-after-Riga-Masters-2017-after-appeals-committee.pdf has the pre-Riga rankings but not the points. Note also that Snooker season 2017/2018 has the post-2017 World Championship situation for "Seeding revision 1" which is presumably incorrect. I have added "Seeding revision 2" to this article. Some of the players "highest ranking" (in the infobox) are now out-of-date. eg John Astley (snooker player) has this as 75. He ended 2016/17 at 76 but jumped to 66 after the rejig, before dropping to 67 post-Riga. Presumably his highest ranking ought to now say 66 although I don't know what dates to use (June 2017 maybe). Nigej (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend updating the "Revision 1" column to match what World Snooker has down as the "start ranks", regardless of the total lack of logic that is being applied by World Snooker. The players are always re-ranked at the start of the season to account for the relegations and promotions, but in the past the top 64 ranks at the start have always matched up to the 64 at the end of the previous season (except in the season they transitioned to a prize money list). In this case World Snooker deducted the 2015 Riga points before re-ranking all the players, which is the first time to my knowledge that they have deducted points before a season tchnically starts. I don't know if this is a mistake or whether they've altered the ranking system, but either way I think Wikipedia should probably reflect World Snooker's rankings. If they have made a mistake then presumably this will be corrected on future ranking lists and can be corrected in due course. Betty Logan (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Rankings pre-Riga are easy. Are the points at Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 column called "1" the correct ones to use? or can I get them from somewhere else? Nigej (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The points under cut-off point 1 at Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 are the post-Riga points, which should match up to "Revision 2" at Snooker world rankings 2017/2018. Confusing I know, but the articles have evolved separately. I believe that the two columns at Snooker world rankings 2017/2018 should match up to http://www.worldsnooker.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/World-Rankings-after-Riga-Masters-2017-after-appeals-committee.pdf, with revision 1 matching the "start" ranks and revision 2 matching the "current" ranks. Betty Logan (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I worked out they were wrong. I've updated revision 1 in the Snooker season 2017/2018 and Snooker world rankings 2017/2018 pages to be the pre-Riga numbers, as best I can, using the earlier version of Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 you noted in the talk page there. Nigej (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Snooker world ranking points 2016/2017 says "The total points from the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 seasons set the rankings at the start of the 2017/2018 season." which is presumably not correct. Nigej (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

It would seem to be incorrect on the basis of their first ranking list. On the other hand they may have goofed on the actual ranking list. Either way World Snooker is being inconsistent on the issue. Their website is woeful for information. We do a more comprehensive job here on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Just want to thank you guys for battling through the technical challenges and doing this stuff. On behalf of the readers, you're much appreciated. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Still a mystery why they removed the 2015 Riga Open which was played late July/early August but the 2015 Australian Goldfields Open is still included even though it was played late June/early July. Nigej (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the office boy has messed it up, but the problem here is that the rankings are set by WS so they are not objective facts that can be compared to an alternative source. I suppose the world rankings are whatever World Snooker say they are. Betty Logan (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't help that the WPBSA often come across (in many respects, actually) as making up the rules as they go along. I can understand the players getting fed up sometimes. The 147 bonus is a nonsense. Tournaments come and go in a way that makes Formula 1 seem normal. Ranking points distribution across tournaments is magnificently stilted. And the machinations around getting a tour card are frankly bonkers. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Top ten Templates

Template:Top ten Chinese male snooker players, Template:Top ten English male snooker players, Template:Top ten Scottish male snooker players, Template:Top ten Welsh male snooker players. Are these useful? Generally out of date anyway. Nigej (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Nah, bin them. Betty Logan (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

2017_World_Cup_(snooker)#Teams_and_players

Why were China B seeded above China A? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I assume as defending champions. A little odd maybe. Nigej (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that'd be it. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ranking revisions

It seems from this (http://www.worldsnooker.com/201718-prize-money-schedule/ - see "Click here for the seeding cut off information") that the ranking revisions for 2017/18 have moved to their logical conclusion, ie they are revised after every ranking event. Although there is reference to "Seeding cut-off points" it is clear that some of these re-rankings will not be used for seeding anything, since there won't be any qualifying events before the next ranking event (assuming that that event has qualifying). eg the 17 September 2017 re-ranking (after the Indian Open) won't be used before it is revised on 25 September 2017 (post World Open) since the World Open qualifying will have already happened. The question for us is whether the re-ranking after every ranking event should affect the way we handle rankings. Currently we have an "Official rankings" section in Snooker season 2017/2018 which lists the top 16 after every re-ranking, Snooker world rankings 2017/2018 which gives the full list (again for every re-ranking) and Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 which gives all the gory details. Surely this too much now. I'm inclined to think that the "Official rankings" section in Snooker season 2017/2018 should be trimmed to just the season-start and/or season-end top-16. Another possibility is to abandon the idea of keeping an historically complete list. eg ATP Rankings has the current men's tennis rankings but they don't attempt to keep a complete history. Another possibility is to add the re-rankings to the tournament pages themselves (eg add a section at the end of 2017 Riga Masters). The use of "Revision 10" (or whatever) should probably be replaced with "post-Scottish Open" or something similarly descriptive. Anyway, I'm really just flagging it up as an opportune time to review the way we handle the rankings before we fully get going on the new season. Nigej (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Rankings have been updated after every event since 2010 but the way we have always done it is to just document the rankings that are used to seed events (which can be found at the calendar). On that basis we don't need to bother with the two August revisions because according to the calendar they are not actually used to seed any events. The next update that needs to be documented according to the calendar is the revision on September 17th after the Indian Open which will be used to seed the International Championship. The re-ranking list is puzzling though because it shows that the 2015 Riga points were dropped when the 2017 ones were added (i.e. on June 27th) and not at the start of the season. This is how it has been done in previous seasons so looks like World Snooker made a mistake with its re-rankings at the start of the season when it omitted the 2015 Riga points. Betty Logan (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Eden Sharav again

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker#Eden_Sharav_nationality_Scotland.2FIsrael.

We now have someone who's changed all occurrences back to Scotland and others changing it back to Israel. I suggest consensus is [re]established here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

At Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 I removed the flag and added a note. At this point World Snooker have put out contradictory information: he represented Israel in the World Cup but World Snooker still have him listed as Scottish. As pointed out in the note there are several plausible explanations for the discrepency so editors should refrain from making assumptions. My recommendation is to follow the example at the ranking points page by leaving the flag blank for the time being and hopefully this will be clarified at some point during the season. Ultimately Wikipedia is a place for recording facts and if those facts are not clear it is best not to spread misinformation. Betty Logan (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Ashley Carty

Could someone who knows what they're doing (ie not me!) update his performance/ranking chart, please? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

World Seniors Tour

Hi will these 4 events be added as non-ranking event wins ?. 31.200.163.163 (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

They are professional titles so I imagine so. Betty Logan (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

From talking to Jason Francis via email there will be a ranking list for the over 40 players who take part with ranking points available, but the Legends players that are invited ie Hendry, White, Doherty, Taylor and Johnson will not receive ranking points. They are invites only. So it carries ranking points and Invitational invites. Will we just proceed and call them non-ranking titles as it's not part of the main tour ?. 178.167.199.16 (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It will probably be best to count them as non-ranking titles on the player profiles, or to add a field for senior titles. The seniors tour should probably be set up like the PTC with an umbrella article (like Players Tour Championship) and season article (like Players Tour Championship 2010/2011) where a seniors ranking list can be maintained. Betty Logan (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Would non-ranking just be better besides creating anymore fields may Look to clustered if there are too many. maybe keep it simple ! 31.200.183.195 (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Paul Hunter Classic

Why is there so little [relatively] prize money for a ranking tournament, and given there's so little, why would top players bother to enter? The net benefit financially or in ranking points seems hardly worth the bother. And I can't believe they're doing it for the glory or the thrill of the competition. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's probably because of the Paul Hunter association. It was named in his honour and many of the top players who were on the tour with him choose to compete in it. In the past some of the players have chosen to donate their prize money from it to the Paul Hunter foundation so I think there is a strong charity element to it. Betty Logan (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

OK that explains why they're competing. Thanks. Doesn't really make sense though for a ranking tournament to have such pathetic prizes - hardly any impact on rankings. Someone who qualifies through three rounds and then beats three players in the main tournament to make the last 16, gets less than £2000 and less than 2000 points. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a legacy of the PTC era. The Paul Hunter Classic started off as a pro-am and has always had a pro-am prize structure; if it had not been for the Hunter connection I think it would have been canned when the PTC finished last year. Betty Logan (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The only reason it has stayed like the other PTC events which have survived the Riga Masters and Gibraltar Open is because they are self sustaining. The Paul Hunter name has nothing to do with attracting players Ronnie, Higgins, Robbo, Trump, Ding, Fu, Williams, Maguire and Allen among others did not even enter. So the event has not received the same entry fields as in earlier editions. This will continue unless they raise the Winner's prize to at least 50k 178.167.194.145 (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The Paul Hunter Classic in Fürth is a unique tournament. There are 10 tables and the watchers can wander around in the hall from table to table. And they do it with due respect to the players. Also there are quite a lot of snooker fans present from Friday to Sunday, so there are no empty ranks. When they are not at the table some players mix with the audience. And the best-of-7 format makes it a lively tournament and there is always action. Finalist Shaun Murphy sounded very sincere when he emphasized the extra quality of the PHC, and he took quite an ordeal to get from China to Germany. Of course there are players who do not like the close contact with the audience. And China Championship, Eurosport absence, and low budget also make it less attractive. But as I gather from the commentaries that WPBSA tries to keep it up because it is a special tournament with more tradition than many new events. -- HvW (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at NSPORTS

Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Snooker rankings

We have a right mess. Snooker season 2017/2018 is up to revision 5. Snooker world rankings 2017/2018 is out of date but has revision 3 corresponding to Snooker season 2017/2018 revision 4. Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 is up-to-date (and seems to be correct) going to revision 3 (actually a provisional ranking I think). Last time I made a suggestion in this area I got slapped down, so I'm reluctant to get involved. Can we have some clarify please. PS I've updated Template:Infobox snooker player/rankings which is up to date but doesn't correspond to a seeding update (as I understand it). Nigej (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled by why you think I "slapped" you down at #Ranking_revisions. What I said was that there was no point documenting ranking revisions that are not used to seed events. Even though the rankings are updated after every event only the seedings at the "cut-off" points have been recorded histroically on the snooker articles. So far there have been three sets of rankings used for seedings this season, so Snooker world rankings 2017/2018 is actually up to date: revision 3 corresponds to the rankings currently used to seed tournaments. Revision 3 corresponds to "cut-off point 2" at Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018. "Cut-off point 3" is currently provisional and is updated as the results come in; the third cut-off will be finalised on October 9 and that will become revision 4 at Snooker world rankings 2017/2018. Snooker_season_2017/2018#Official_rankings is actually wrong: it states that the season is up to its 5th seeding revision but this is simply not correct as you can see at http://www.worldsnooker.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Calendar-2017-18-v19.pdf. Betty Logan (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite see why the three pages are written in such a way that it seems only you can understand them. Surely they should have some decent explanation, not just something written here. We have Snooker world rankings 2017/2018 which says "The following table contains the rankings, which were used to determine the seedings for certain tournaments.", the comma implying that it is a complete list of ranking changes. Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 makes no reference to "3" not really being 3 but a provisional list. Snooker_season_2017/2018#Official_rankings is all wrong and then you say: Revision 3 corresponds to "cut-off point 2" which is clearly confusing. I'm also confused as to why "that there was no point documenting ranking revisions" when we list a player's highest ranking which presumably includes the non-seeding rankings. I find it a bit odd that you so happy with the current state of play. Nigej (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The articles have developed independently and serve different functions. One records the ranking updates and the other points accumulated throughout the season. Prior to 2010 there were no updates and the rankings lasted all season, so the total points at Snooker world ranking points 2008/2009 set the rankings at Snooker world rankings 2009/2010. In 2010/11 the mid-season updates were introduced (and called cut-off points), and given the nature of how the rankings work and what World Snooker called them the first set of seedings were followed by the first cut-off point. So for example, the points at the end of 2009/10 set the seedings at the start of 2010/11. The points at the first cut-off at Snooker world ranking points 2010/2011 were used to provide the second set of seedings at Snooker world rankings 2010/2011. So you can see that John Higgins' points at the first cut-off in 2010/11 is 46470 which provided the second set of seedings that season. It might be confusing but the format of these articles followed the format as established by World Snooker. In retrospect it might have been more helpful if the columns at Snooker world rankings 2010/2011 were labeled "Start", "Cut-off 1", "Cut-off 2" and "Cut-off 3", but as I said the articles evolved independently. As for Snooker_season_2017/2018#Official_rankings, this is just wrong: Snooker_season_2010/2011#Official_rankings correlates exactly with Snooker world rankings 2010/2011 and this should be the case for every season. Betty Logan (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I can see your very keen on writing long justifications here as to current situation but surely we need better articles. Personally all I see is chaos and confusion. Nigej (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I have simply explained the structure of the articles and how they came to be that way. You say I "slapped" you down but as far as I can see you have not actually made any suggestions for me to "slap down". You say you are confused by the articles and I have freely given you my time trying to explain them so I don't really understand the hostility. I tried my best to sort out your confusion and I don't see anybody else replying to your questions. Betty Logan (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't pretend to be an expert on the topic. You're the one purporting to be the expert. However when I note the current chaos, you don't say "OK let's sort it out" you say "that's the way it is, like it or lump it" which seems an unproductive approach to me. Nigej (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

All I have done is made a good faith effort to clear up the confusion and at no point have I said "like it or lump it", and I have never adopted that attitude on Wikipedia. It seems to me part of your confusion was caused by incorrect information at Snooker season 2017/2018 and I corrected that article. If that hasn't cleared up the confusion then we can take another look at it. Betty Logan (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, our main page, on this day has "1969 – Playing for Santos against Vasco da Gama in Rio de Janeiro, Brazilian footballer Pelé (pictured) scored his one thousandth goal." All a load of rubbish, of course. It includes all sorts of mickey mouse games but if you say it enough times people start to believe it. And I come from a cricket background where variations in published cricket statistics are an accepted reality and life goes on without banning one side or the other. Nigej (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Mark Selby at 2017 European Masters (snooker)

He's played one match, won 4-1, yet has five televised centuries to his credit in the article. Impossible, unless he made 25+ fouls in one frame. --84.19.47.96 (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually he's played 2 matches, since his 1st round (last 128) match was held over and played in Belgium. Nigej (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The article doesn't call that "1st round" it calls it "Qualifying". If his qualifying match was televised and no-one else's was, fair enough but we should explain, not puzzle people. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how making 25 fouls bags you a century either. It would just give your opponent 100+ points over the course of a frame. Betty Logan (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

If he won 4-1 and made 5 centuries, by definition his opponent scored 101 or more in the same frame, which would only be possible through dozens of fouls, as we have already established that Selby scored a century break. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I think he meant his opponent "made 25+ fouls in one frame". More confusion. Nigej (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It's quite simple to follow he had played two matches and made 5 century breaks. His first match is called a heldover match as the world number one he receives the honour of playing all his matches at the venue. Is that all cleared up ?. Is everyone happy good 92.251.235.80 (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Horace Lindrum

We have more attempts to add unsuitable material to the Horace Lindrum article. I have reverted these. Nigej (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou Nigej; I have added it to my watchlist in case there are further edits of this nature. Betty Logan (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)