Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2021/December

Held over matches (again)

Further to #Held over matches above, we're still getting attempts to change Mark Allen's Maximum break to a qualifying match, despite the fact that the official list https://wst.tv/wpbsa/official-147s/ makes no mention of it as such (no "qualifiers" in entry 170). Part of the reason for this is that we seem to have got into the habit of regarding held over matches as qualifiers, seemingly contrary to how WST thinks of them. As noted in the earlier discussion we've had a system of moving centuries in held over matches to the qualifying stage section (see eg 2021 Northern Ireland Open#Century breaks) contrary to the way WST organised them. We also include held over matches in a "Qualifying" section.

One solution to this would be to simply change a few headings (with some cosmetic editing), eg change ""Qualifying" to "Qualifying and held over matches", "Qualifying stage centuries" to "Centuries in qualifying and held over matches". A more radical alternative would be to extract the held over matches from the "Qualifying" section and put them in a "Held over matches" section. This could be down the bottom of the article (like Qualifying) or could be above the "Main draw", like the way we treat the old "wildcard" matches, eg 2012 German Masters#Wildcard round (perhaps my choice).

There is also a minor knock-on effect to the "Performance and rankings timeline" sections of player articles. see eg Allen's opponent in the held over match, Si Jiahui, whose entry for this event says "LQ" (lost in the qualifying draw), which is actually not correct. Presumably it should be "LH" (lost in a held over match) (or whatever). Nigej (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The other alternative is to not to mention whether the break took place in qualifying or not, and just say which event it took place in. If we wish to keep it, then we need to follow that list - which says that break took place in the event, and not qualification. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Just add another voice to this discussion, the WST splits centuries into "Qualifying Venue" and "Main Venue" sections (although they don't title it that way). For example the 2021 UK Championship has just one list as all the matches were played at the same venue , whereas the current Scottish Open has two such lists with the held-over matches showing in the 'Main Venue' list as Round 1 (held over). I don't think it helps matters that WST are titling their list as 'Qualifying Centuries' and 'Centuries', but is it worth considering breaking down the centuries list (if indeed that is the suggested way forward) to "Qualifying Venue" and "Main Venue" categories rather than just "Qualifying" and "Main Draw"? Steveflan (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

One is called "BetVictor Scottish Open 2021 Qualifiers" with the centuries being in "Round 1", and the other is called "BetVictor Scottish Open 2021" with the held over matches called "Round 1 (held over)". However I think your suggestion is a good one (Venue would need to be lower case). Somehow we've got to get people used to the idea that there doesn't seem to be any concept of a "qualifying round" or a "qualifying stage" for the WST nowadays, just qualifying matches and main venue matches, and held over matches are in the latter category. Nigej (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This does seem like the most sensible way to deal with this. Although, only for events post-2019 where this has been a thing. I don't think we should make those changes to events where there is a clear qualification and main stage, even when there were held over matches. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it goes back a bit before 2019 but its not a very longstanding issue. Firstly, wild-card matches were originally the thing. Later there were a few held over matches but generally we treat them in the way WST does. See eg the 2006 Malta Cup, an early example, where Tony Drago's matches were held over. He didn't even reach the last-32 stage, losing in the last "qualifying" round. However we include his century in the "Televised stage centuries" not the "Qualifying stage centuries". Similarly Liang Wenbo in the 2008 Shanghai Masters (his 105 was against Allen). Also Dominic Dale in the 2009 Welsh Open (snooker) (centuries against Wenbo). It only seems to be more recently that we've abandoned this Televised/Qualifying distinction. I don't think Televised is a good word nowadays (rather ill-defined) but we can still use the same idea: Main venue/Qualifying. Nigej (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

References

EPTC Plate Trophy

I was looking at the Luca Brecel article and see that we have a "Non-ranking" win for him "EPTC Plate Trophy – Event 2". This was added in December 2020 by you-know-who with the comment "After each EPTC Event that season a non ranking Plate Trophy was set up for the players knocked out in the first round to win some money and a trophy". The EPTC Event 2 referred to is this: Euro Players Tour Championship 2010/2011 – Event 2, a minor-ranking event. However he didn't win this, he lost at the last-128 stage. That season a "plate" competition was organised for the 6 EPC events which the last-128 losers could enter and this is what Brecel won. He won 1,500 euros, the runner-up 500. Its a struggle to find sources. Clearly the information here has come from cuetracker which includes them in its "Non-professional" list of events. The main event is in the "Professional" list. Our 6 articles for these 2010 EPTC events don't mention the winner of the plate except for Euro Players Tour Championship 2010/2011 – Event 4 which includes this source http://www.southwestsnookeracademy.com/tournaments/Archive/eptc4-2010/tournaments-plates-results.html for the plate event. This shows that only 5 of the 32 first round matches in the plate were actually played, at least one player scratched in the other 27, and only 4 of the 16 second round matches were actually played. Seems to me this is real "scraping the bottom of the barrel" stuff and I would propose removing these 6 plate events from the "Non-ranking finals" section of the player articles, as non bona-fide tournaments. Brecel's biography at WST https://wst.tv/players/luca-brecel/ fails to mention it and also says he won his "second professional title at the Matchroom.Live Championship League" which clearly excludes this plate event as a "professional title" (his first win was a ranking event). Nigej (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. It's hardly a championship win, and it's a hard sell that it was a non-ranking final in any sense of the word, as the event itself was ranking. Perhaps we need to get an actual list of what events are suitable for our ranking/non-ranking events final section. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we should only have articles and tournament list entries for events that meet WP:GNG. I'd be surprised if EPTC Plate Trophy meets that threshold. If there are reliable sources, I'd include brief summaries of plate-type events for early round losers in the relevant main article, and tournament results if it's the plate for losers in a world championship. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no list for suitable non ranking events or whatever. Non ranking events are independent ly promoted and have been well looked after here the info is all correct. About these tournaments I am led to believe they took place because players that were knocked out of the main event had a separate event to make money and the money did not go towards rankings. It was a plate competition similar to the one in the world championship in 73,74 I imagine Kentbobo (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no list for suitable non ranking events or whatever, yes, that's why we are suggesting to create one. "Correct" information is not a valid reason for inclusion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

If it is correct it is correct. So do you mean Lee you are going to be deleting non ranking events from everyones pages ?. Kentbobo (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Please indent your messages. If an item isn't suitable as a non-ranking final (so an event that isn't suitably notable to be denoted as such), then it shouldn't be included on players pages. It is up to us to come up with the criteria which is fair.

We don't just include information because it is "correct", see WP:NOT Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

But that is an oxymoron Lee you should include information which is correct. That is the point of any sports encyclopedia. Not just what you think is suitable. Kentbobo (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

No. The point of a stats site is to cover everything and anything. An encyclopedia covers the important things in a player's career. Other minor things, with little or no coverage, we don't include. As to these EPTC Plate matches you don't indicate whether you want to keep them or not. Not sure what you mean by "deleting non ranking events from everyones pages" but personally I'm coming round to the idea of removing the non-ranking parameter from the infobox until we have a defined list of what counts and what doesn't. The actual list is well down the article and only the keenest reader will get that far, however including the total in the infobox (which people do look at) gives the number much more credibility that it deserves. See eg https://web.archive.org/web/20120531193810/http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/titles.html which includes Masters wins, which could perhaps replace it. Nigej (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Would you please read like, literally any of our policy pages, such as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. You constantly, erroneously, believe we are a fan website. We are an encyclopaedia, similar to Britannica, where we summarise what reliable sources say about a subject. Sometimes, results and statistics are helpful to show this information, but we don't just retain all information about a subject. If something is non-notable, then it's irrelevant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC) (Amended links. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC))

That is a hideous idea Nigej. Removing non ranking wins for the infobox. People want event wins in an infobox regarding non ranking and minor ranking. Who said it was only the keenest people who are interested that would go down the page and read on ?. Have you conducted a survey ?. That is impossible to know.That is an opinion. I think people would and want to see a full set of career titles in the infobox. We seem to going down a bad road here especially with events regarding older players. You can't just go deleting events if there is little info on them if they actually exist. It does not mean they do not deserve a place.There is nothing wrong with the system. A minor or not notable event in your words can still be a Non-ranking event. I am not even talking about these plates but in general. Kentbobo (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You're missing the point as usual. WST says in Brecel's biography (https://wst.tv/players/luca-brecel/) that he won his "second professional title at the Matchroom.Live Championship League" while we have it as a 3rd win (1 ranking, 2 non-ranking). Highlighting to people in the infobox that he's won 3 when sources say he's won 2 is not satisfactory, surely you can see that. Its clear that the EPTC Plate is not a "title". There might have been a trophy and a few euros, but who cares? I had a box full of trophies I'd won from all sorts of minor sporting events. All in the bin now, no one's interested. Nigej (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

No I'm not missing any point at all. I see what you are saying. But there is a big difference between a professional player winning a title however and you winning something. You are not a pro and who cares about what you have won ?. I think I will remove these plates wins for now Kentbobo (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Cheers. That'll save me the bother. Nigej (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Non-ranking events consisting of a single match

In John Spencer's "Non-ranking finals" we have a win in the Benson & Hedges Ireland Tournament beating Alex Higgins 9-7. As the Irish Masters article makes clear this was actually a challenge match. The reference refers to the "winner take all" Benson & Hedges Challenge Match. Including this in his "Non-ranking finals" is clearly nonsense, in what sense was it a "final". The old pros were constantly playing one-on-one matches but we don't consider these as "wins". I would suggest that we have a clear rule that "Non-ranking finals" cannot include one-off matches, we need at least 4 players in a tournament surely, otherwise how can there be a "final". Nigej (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

No I have to disagree there were no set rules back then no one ever said you had to have four players. The World finals in the early days were contested as a two player challenge match and they count. Plus this event you talk about is included and sourced in Chris Turner's Snooker Archive. Lots of events in the early days were of this nature 89.204.233.229 (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Its completely incorrect to say "The World finals in the early days were contested as a two player challenge match". Occasionally only two players entered but they were never a pre-arranged match between two players, as this one was. I'd be happy to make an exception for events in which anyone could enter but only 2 or 3 did. Nigej (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You can't just make up a rule that a tournament has 4 players to make a non ranking event. You have to respect the history of the game that is the way national championships, an Australian Open and even world finals were decided back then.All sourced by Chris Turner's Snooker Archive and other sites of course. 89.204.233.229 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm just saying that a pre-arranged "Challenge Match" between two players cannot in any sense be a bona-fide "final". Where does Chris Turner's Snooker Archive says was a "non-ranking final"? see https://web.archive.org/web/20120216155735/http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/irishmast.html "Irish Masters World Ranking Event since 1984" "The Irish Masters traces its origins to a snooker challenge match, promoted by Benson & Hedges in 1975 at the National Boxing Arena in Dublin between John Spencer and Alex Higgins." Can't find "non-ranking final" anywhere. Nigej (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course the above discussion further highlights the fact that its us deciding what's a non-ranking final and what isn't, reinforcing my view that we should, as a minimum, remove the "non-ranking wins" from the infobox. Where's the source? Clearly nowhere. Nigej (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To be clear the 1964–68 World Snooker Championships were actually challenge matches, in the sense that they were designed to be contested as a one-of match. However, it's a bit much to start saying that any challenge match that had a name is somehow a final is crazy. This is why a little bit further up, we need some inclusion criteria for the non-ranking events. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

There are a few oddities like 1967 World Open Snooker Championship which, IMO, just about scrape through the general notability guidelines and so which I'd incline towards including. I'd go for a slightly weaker stipulation than suggested above, along the lines ""Non-ranking finals" should not include tournaments where fewer than four players competed, unless there is a consensus to include that particular tournament." It's one of those areas where I feel there's never going to be an easy delineation. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd support removing "non-ranking wins" from the infobox. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying these challenge matches weren't competitive, it just seems to me that it gives a false impression having them in a section called "Non-ranking finals", maybe we need a separate section on "Challenge Matches". And someone looking at John Spencer's infobox: "Tournament wins - Non-ranking 27" are being deceived IMO. Nigej (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Also I'm not keen on the use of "non-ranking" for the earlier matches. The concept of a ranking event didn't get going until late 1982. The earliest references I can find to a "ranking event"/"ranking tournament" are from October 1983 and the term "non-ranking" comes in even later. I know it was me that got rid of the "Major wins" in the infobox, but I don't find that a useful concept either. Nigej (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that any notable tournaments that aren't ranking events should be merged together into "Other wins", so, the newer idea of a "non-ranking event" (like the Masters, Shanghai Masters etc), older events that were major events but didn't have ranking points due to how they were dealt with (early WSC, UK Championships, the News of the World Tournament, etc), team tournaments (like the World Cup, World Triples, etc), and notable pro-am events (I suppose the Paul Hunter Classic, although I'd be happy not to include these either). Have all of these down under "other finals". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Runners-up

This edit [1] has been done on a few articles. Seems suitable, but I had a look around to find out if there is actually a correct version of this word, and found very little. Generally the usage of "runners-up", means multiple people coming as runner-up, whereas we mean that the person has finished as the "runner-up" in multiple competitions. Webster just says that "runners-up" is the correct plural, but in my eyes that's a seperate meaning. Is it maybe worth changing this across our articles to say something different to remove the potential confusion. I think it's possible we are using this phrasing completely wrong. Therocket1990, any ideas? Maybe we could completely omit the amount of second places entirely, as we give the amount of finals, and the amount of wins? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I always thought "runners-up" looked odd, but slightly less odd than "runner-ups", and I'm not sure either of them is correct in this context. I'd vote to drop it altogether: Ranking finals: 30 (20 titles).
Or maybe change it to: Ranking finals: 30 appearances (20 titles)? Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be much happier with "Ranking finals: 30 (20 titles)". Should be a reasonably easy task to automate if we did adopt it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I'd say that's a good idea, so I'm for "Ranking finals: 30 (20 titles)" Therocket1990 (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Again why does everybody nowadays want to remove and change everything ?. Why can't you guys ever just want to leave things alone like in Tennis or Darts. I want to know exactly how many finals a player has won and lost without having to go to the trouble of having to count them up if the runner-up finishes are removed. If it is not broken don't fix it. It is like people get bored and come up with these radical ideas to mess about with finals, centuries and now results. How come nobody messes zround with Tennis or Darts ?. 92.251.231.58 (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Runner-up finishes need to be included who is confused by it really not one person on this planet ?.omg sometimes I really do not believe what I am reading on here. Unbelievable stuff 92.251.231.58 (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

DooksFoley147 you have been told many times to login to your account to edit. Your aversion to change is silly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

would anyone have any issues if we were to make these changes across the list of articles? I think we were in agreement that "runners-up" isn't grammatically correct. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm planning on being WP:BOLD and making these changes in the coming days. Just need to work out the regex to get it done on WP:AWB. Please let me know here today if there are massive issues with doing this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I am totally against these changes. Runner-up finishes have to be kept as they are in finals sections. A reader wants to know at a glance how many finals a player has won and lost by looking at the finals banner. A reader should not just see titles and then have to go into each section counting up in their head how many runner-up places a player has in their career. Has anybody changed this in Tennis ?. That seems to be left the same so why do we have to change this around with snooker ?. Are you planning to replace Runner-up finishes with finals lost or some other terminology?. It cannot just be left blank 178.167.240.131 (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

So, if you saw 5 finals (3 titles) you would be completely unaware as to how many runner-up finishes people have? We do not have anything to do with tennis, so I have zero idea why you are bringing it up. Do you really think a reader is unable to do simple mathematics? I'm also not convinced readers care about how many finals a person has lost. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I changed it in the Tony Knowles article to the format "Non-ranking finals: 7 (2 titles, 5 times runner-up)" but an IP editor reverted to the old wording. "5 runners-up" seems wrong. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

But that is your opinion that people don't care but I for one as a fan I do care how many career finals a players has lost. under the current system say Ranking events 18 runners-up, non ranking 14 runners-up, minor ranking 9 runners-up. I look at the players page and look at the finals section and I saw it is 18 and 14 and 9 = 41 runners-up straight forward simple. Now under your suggestion I only see titles listed. So I have to go into the Rankings section look at the finals try to remember how many they have lost i have to go to non Ranking and try to remember how many they have lost and then go to the minor ranking finals and try to remember how many they have lost, hope to remember all three and add them together.is that better or helping ?. 178.167.240.131 (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

As above, the word "runners-up" doesn't mean someone finishing multiple times in second position, it means multiple people finishing in second place. We list the number of finals, and also the amount of wins, so you don't need to count them up, the information is plainly there. Our job is to convey information in an encyclopedic way, which for this section is to show their career finals, and what events they won. If it says "Finals 9 (6 titles)", are you saying that you are unable to take 6 from 9 and realise that they must have finished second in three of those finals?

I feel like your arguments are simply based on WP:ILIKEIT rather than actually trying to make the encyclopedia better. I'm happy to open this as a full WP:RfC, but I find it hard to believe there would be multiple users who would want to retain the current style. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This is now being reverted at Stuart Bingham - can we get a consensus on how we want these to be set (and I'll set out a AWB run when I'm done with the century lists). I recommend:

===Ranking finals: X (Y titles)===

This shows the total amount of finals, and also how many they have won. With very simple maths, you can also work out how many finals they appear in where they indeed finish as runner-up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Neither "Runners-up" or "Runner-ups" looks right to me. I'd prefer either "Ranking finals: 30 (20 titles)" or a new formulation like "(Ranking finals: 30 (20 wins, 10 losses)" or "(Ranking finals: 30 (20 titles, 10 times runner-up)". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a note that I am now going through all of these and making the changes per the consensus. I am considering any reverts of this to be vandalism at this point, until a new consensus is met. A recent revert for finals: 5 (1 title) to finals 5: (1 title, 4 finalist) is really poor, as they have completed in five finals. Please do not change this without a consensus for better wording. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary nowrap use

We seem to have an issue with certain editors unnecessarily using the nowrap template at random locations. I've observed a couple of instances of this in places like the 2021 Masters (snooker), 2022 Masters (snooker) and the 2021 Scottish Open (snooker) so far. An easy (and obvious) fix I've been doing is simply increasing the team width to 220. From my side, setting it to this width is more than wide enough for every player on the tour, and removes the need to clutter up draw template invocations (which are cluttered enough as is) with useless templates. Would anyone have any issue if we attempt to standardise the team width to 220 going forward? I think this would massively improve the issue with nowrap template invocations cluttering snooker draws. --CitroenLover (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I think we recently discussed this. But yeah, more than just being redundant, the nowrap template actually causes issues within brackets. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I also recall the discussion, but I don't remember where lol. Sounds good then, going forward I'll update snooker articles to remove nowrap and fix team width's to 220 until such a time requires them to be expanded to 230. --CitroenLover (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, everyone see these tables differently depending on their device, font and character size, so there is no "correct" size that will guarantee that the name will fit onto one line. Play with your character size (ctrl+ and ctrl- on Windows) and you can see this. We have a number of editors who are determined to tune these brackets to their own screen/font/character size. Secondly, why are people so obsessed with this issue? If it wraps onto two lines for you and this is a big issue for you, one solution is to simply reduce your own character size. The problem with using nowrap is that is forces that particular text onto one line, when for some users it would be better for it to wrap - perhaps they've got a narrow screen or have bigger characters because they can't see very well. Nigej (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Hyphenated words (best example is [[Thepchaiya Un-Nooh|Thepchaiya {{nowrap|Un-Nooh}}]] is an exception. See WP:NOWRAP for details, but some terms should never wrap, but this isn't to be used on names that just happen to be long. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree Nigej (that everyone sees the tables differently), but I don't think that we should just "selectively" and very randomly use nowrap on just a tiny number of players. If we are going to use nowrap in draws, then in my opinion, it should be used in a consistent manner. Using nowrap on someone like Thepchaiya's surname makes sense because its hyphenated, but then it would be better to make a template that does that on behalf of the user rather than adding it into actual pages, since currently [to my knowledge] he is the only player with hyphens.

From a multi-device standpoint, this is only my own opinion on this, but I don't think it really matters much. If this was important, we would design every page to be mobile first, but thats not consistent because Wikipedia does not expect editors to design pages so they look good on mobile but bad everywhere else. When I do look at the pages on my iPad Pro (12.9") from time to time, I don't mind that there is some line breaking from player names, it doesn't really make the page any harder to read.

In fact, the nowrap use often makes the first round "readable", but makes every subsequent round much more squashed and thus unreadable, not to mention unprofessionally formatted. For example, when Ronnie's name was nowrapped on the Scottish Open first round in the template, this caused the template to be extremely wide in the first round, that the "final scores" in later rounds is barely readable at all. Removing the nowrap eliminated the readability concerns of the final scores and made the template consistently have the same width when scrolling down, even if there was more row depth in cells. --CitroenLover (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree there. Making column wider so that the later one gets more squashed isn't really the solution. One specific issue for me is that I'm not very keen on the 64 player brackets. For me its not particularly a width issue, more a height one. See eg 2019 China Open (snooker)#Main draw. If your down the bottom of the bracket you're struggling to work out which round is which. For me the top half/bottom half division helps there. Nigej (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I find that the "em" measurement is better than hard pixel sizes for column widths. It accommodates users who have larger font sizes, for whatever reason (usually poor eyesight). Line splits don't usually bother me but they can excessively increase scrolling on small displays. Betty Logan (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, works well with Reflist for instance but not sure its valid in these bracket templates. Nigej (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC that could affect this project

There is a titling RFC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles that will affect many articles at this project. There was discussion of making the RfC handled bit by bit before all projects understood the ramifications with entertainment being singled out next in a deleted draft, and other projects after that. Whether you agree or don't agree please join in the discussion for this massive Wikipedia change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

This relates to articles like: 2015 IBSF World Snooker Championship – Men's, Asian Players Tour Championship 2012/2013 – Event 1, Asian Tour 2013/2014 – Event 1, Cue sports at the 2002 Asian Games – Snooker doubles, Euro Players Tour Championship 2010/2011 – Event 1, European Tour 2012/2013 – Event 1, Players Tour Championship 2010/2011 – Event 1, Pro Challenge Series – Event 1, Q-School 2015/16 - Event 1, Snooker at the World Games 2001 – men's singles and whether to have caps or not after the dash or perhaps remove the dash. Nigej (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I've left some comments. At the risk of canvassing, I don't really understand why we use a dash for a lot of these events. Especially for "event 1". They should probably be merged IMO, but even if not, why a dash? Why a capital? I suspect the tennis aficciannos will have the most to say about it, as they've discussed it to death before. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about the Pro Challenge Series – Event 1 series (played the season before the PTC started). The Pro Challenge Series gets a mention at Q Tour#History but the events were not really part of that series, being more like the later PTC events (https://web.archive.org/web/20120216160521/http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/prochall.html). In any case a single article for the whole season is clearly sufficient. The Category:Q School (snooker) events would likewise be better as a single article (per season), currently umpteen rounds of scores that no one is every going to look at. I think perhaps that the Players Tour Championship events are just about worth an article each (as minor-ranking events) but maybe even that's a little doubtful. Certainly, I think it's clear that one well-written article for a whole season is likely to be much more useful to readers that a large number of articles just full of scores. Nigej (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The RFC is about about the capitalization after the dash, whether the dash is there or not. The person who placed the RFC wants it all lower case after the dash or all lower case even if the dash is removed. I just wanted the project to know it will likely have an affect here and I didn't want it to be done one project after another. Whatever you want please join in the discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Pro Challenge Series

I have created an article Pro Challenge Series, primarily a synthesis of the current four articles: Pro Challenge Series – Event 1,Pro Challenge Series – Event 2, Pro Challenge Series – Event 3 and Pro Challenge Series – Event 5 with most of the scores and other stats removed. My plan is to change these four articles to redirect to the main article, per previous discussions here on minor events. Nigej (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, you could probably include all of the results from the events. It wouldn't make the article too large in my opinion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Another alternative is to keep the 4 sub-articles. Although the series is mentioned at Q Tour#History, its clear that it was a much more important series that most of the other events mentioned there, since it was (like the later PTC) specifically designed for main tour players (unlike the current Q Tour for instance which is specifically designed for non-tour players). Also centuries in it count towards player totals, although not Ronnie's since he, like many others, never bothered with it. Nigej (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

No, we don't need four articles on this. One is fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added the scores and centuries but not the "final" box. Nigej (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Qualifying round scores using RoundN

I've changed the 2 rounds of qualifying scores for the upcoming 2022 German Masters#Qualifying to use RoundN, in a style we used to use with customised templates, but have abandoned in recent times as formats have changed. Compare with the old version here: [2]. Data entry is slightly easier since the winner is highlighted automatically. The two-column aspect is done manually, it's two tables side by side. Just a suggestion, happy to go back to other. Nigej (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I don’t really see much point in this format. There are only two tournaments with more than one round of qualifying: German Masters and the World Championships, the latter with 4 rounds where such s table makes sense. Virtually every other tournament with qualifiers only have one round, which often is just the first round [last 128] played in a closed doors venue.

On the German Masters, it just looks weird, as if its been done wrongly and is incomplete. I think we’re better off keeping the previous format, although finding a way to autobold players who win, similar to the brackets, would be a good addition. Otherwise, i think we should revert to the standard qualification results formatting used elsewhere on the snooker pages. —CitroenLover (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Use of Dave Hendon's podcast for info

Hi all. Most of us know who Dave Hendon is, being a highly regarded commentator for Matchroom, ITV and Eurosport tournaments. Just been listening to his latest podcast episode (Snooker Scene, you can find it on Sport Social's website) and while this isn't confirmed information, he's mentioned that its highly likely that neither the 2022 German Masters and 2022 European Masters are going to be played in Germany, primarily because of the pandemic changing things to the point that the German government are unlikely to allow venues to have crowds: he's mentioned previously that the Tempodrom breaks even on ticket sales, just from a full house event in normal times.

We already have a disclaimer above the calendar table on the 2021-22 snooker season page regarding "variability of tournament locations" because of the pandemic, but it makes me wonder if we should remove things from pages based on opinions or supposition from someone such as Hendon? I recently replaced the venue and location data for these 2 tournaments with a "tbc" since recent events suggest there's very little to no chance of these tournaments being played abroad. Thoughts welcome. --CitroenLover (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Tagging in @Nigej: and @Lee Vilenski: (after editing the initial message). --CitroenLover (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, what do official sources say? We should really stick to the official calendar, unless something specific comes out. As much as Dave is a reliable source, it does sound like they are chasing rumours. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lee. There's currently not been any official statement yet, but from what I've gathered, Dave does have close contacts from WST officials (given he knew why the venue couldn't be used in Scotland for the Scottish Open). As we know, WST does seem to like "timing" announcements to be shared at specific times of tournaments nowadays, rather than just releasing them as soon as possible, so perhaps the official announcement will come out during the final of the WGP? --CitroenLover (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Lee. I'd go for following the official announcements. Our readers know that we're not in the speculation business and expect us to follow the official line. Nigej (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense to stick to official stuff for the time being. Thanks both!! --CitroenLover (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Edits by DF147

What are we supposed to do about IP edits by User:DooksFoley147/User:Kentbobo now that he's blocked? I've reverted a few but I'm not sure if this is the correct approach. Nigej (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Revert is fine. A range block isn't going to work, but if they get persistent on an individual IP, take to AIV, or let me know for a WP:DUCK block. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed his obsessions are such that its immediately obvious that it's him, in this case a need to stress that something is a variant event, in his terms, at least 10 times. BettyLogan at User talk:Kentbobo suggested that he might follow the WP:SO but that involves not editing for 6 months even as an IP, something that seems unlikely in the extreme. Nigej (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

He'd need to actually apply for that, and generally you'd still need to show that you have changed from what got you banned in the first place. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Latest edits as Special:Contributions/178.167.207.207. Nigej (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

"Ranked vs Invitational" championship league snooker

Hi, as we know the invitational Championship League will be returning at end of year and run through to February. What I'm finding the most confusing is the titling of the pages in the last 2 years since the pandemic. It's actually pretty difficult to find article you're looking for, since its not automatically clear which one is referring to the invitation version or which the ranking. I'd like to propose that, rather than doing convoluted titles like 2020 Championship League (2019-20 season) and 2020 Championship League (2020-21 season), we instead replace the bracketed text with a descriptive title referring to whether the version was a ranking, non-ranking or invitational tournament. I don't expect the ranking version to continue indefinitely [as its really only had a ranking variant due to the pandemic], but it would be a lot easier to differentiate the tournaments this way than referring to the season they occurred in, imo. Thoughts welcome. --CitroenLover (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed awhile back (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2021/January#Championship League/European Masters article names). Disamb pages like 2020 Championship League could be made more detailed, adding which were ranking/non-ranking/whatever. What happens when they're both ranking events or both non-ranking? We have 1993 European Open (1992/1993) and 1993 European Open (1993/1994), both ranking events, for instance (although this example doesn't include "season" in its name). Of course, we can add redirects, currently we have eg June 2020 Championship League but more could be added like 2020 Championship League (ranking event) if someone might plausibly type that in. Nigej (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I would say that is more preferable to change the page title to 2020 Championship League (ranking event), etc as I would not expect there to be 2 ranking events with the same name in the same season (hence the use of a season 'indicator' for the European Open pages previously mentioned). Would it be worth considering an automated redirect to the 'regular' non-ranking event and then have a disambiguation sentence (similar to Word-sense_disambiguation) so that users can see there was another similarly titled 'ranking' event? Steveflan (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

No, we wouldn't expect two ranking events with the same name in the same season but it seems to me pretty likely that we'll have more situations where were have two ranking events with the same name in the same YEAR, which will require some sort of disambiguation. If we think users are confused we could add {{confused}} hatnotes. All reminds of the 1971 World Snooker Championship which was actually played in 1970 but we use "1971" to avoid this issue. Nigej (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not really our choice. As far as I've seen, this is how sources refer to these events. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

We disambiguate events using the season when they are primarily part of the same lineage and just get shunted from the second half of the season to the first half. The Championship League appears to be more complicated than that: the ranking edition and the invitational edition are starting to look like divergent lineages. However, this could just be a quirk of the pandemic (a lack of events, lack of sponsors etc), and World Snooker is probably just hosting a second event to fill some time in the calendar and once things get back to normal we could be back to one League per season. What I would suggest is that we hold fire on this for now; I appreciate the merit of CitreonLover's point but I don't think we should introduce a brand new disambiguation formalism just for one event over two or three seasons if the event reverts to one per season. If the event does evolve into two lineages post-pandemic (i.e. one ranking event and one invitational per season) then that probably should be reflected in the titling in some way. Betty Logan (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it is fairly obvious it will not continue as two events in the same season as we go on. Jason Ferguson made comments as much to say the ranking version was added to the calendar for pandemic reasons as an early season event 92.251.243.61 (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

All arguments provided are equally valid and we should indeed wait a little bit before deciding. That being said, in all of the article leads of the "confusing" articles, we should probably stipulate it much more clearly if a tournament was an invitational or ranking event imo, if we haven't already. :) --CitroenLover (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: and @Nigej: reopening this topic. The championship league snooker website at https://championshipleaguesnooker.co.uk seems to now specifically differentiate the two versions of this tournament. One being invitational, another being ranking. For this reason, i think we should now be differentiating the pages so that readers know which edition is ranking and which isn’t. Not sure what to do about the may 2020 version, since that isn’t mentioned on their site afaik. [the differentiation context is referring to article titles]. CitroenLover (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

It would certainly make sense to have 2021 Championship League (ranking) and 2021 Championship League (invitational) as redirects, and other possible names too. Probably based on WP:CRITERIA these might be good names for the articles too. Nigej (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't say I have feelings either way. I feel it's been stable enough until now that an WP:RM might be suitable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, no big deal for me either. Not sure there really is a common disambiguous name for these events. Looking at WP:CRITERIA it seems to me that the ranking/invitational idea fits better regarding "naturalness" and "conciseness" than 2019–20 season/2020–21 season and equal regarding "precision". Bit of a unique situation so I think "consistency" is not a big issue here. Nigej (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay cool. I think its worth being bold and just moving the articles over the last 2 years to disambiguating titles for ranking and invitational, leaving redirects for the old titles. This may also help with regards of “defending champion”: apparently dave gilbert is defending the invitational version of this tournament, despite winning a ranking-variant version, not sure how that works when the tournaments aren’t really the same! CitroenLover (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

What it shows is that they're all Championship League events. It's just that we have two a year at the moment, and we're just trying to distinguish between those two, not turning Championship League into two separate events: ranking+invitational. I think we can limit changes to that aspect at the moment. Nigej (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I updated the ranking event edition from 2020-21 season and corrected a few links, but any idea how long it takes the bot to update all of the links? don't feel like updating the link in player pages lol, but don't want to move to one of the others just yet.

As an aside, would anyone have any issues if the "post-lockdown" edition in June 2020 (ie 2020 Championship League (2019-20 season)) was updated to be 2020 Championship League (non-ranking)? This would distinguish it from the invitational version that started in October and finished in March (and this one I think should probably be updated to 2020 Championship League (invitational) to fit with all other invitational versions) and avoid there being a random outlier using an older naming convention. --CitroenLover (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)