Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2022/September

Legends events

Can I just clarify the status of these events and their coverage in player profiles? The question relates to this discussion at my talk page: User talk:Betty Logan#Hi Betty how are you. Betty Logan (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I would disengage with a sockpuppet banned user (per this SPI), but my opinion on titles on players bios is that they should be for professional and major amatuer events. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your reply to DF147 and to Lee's comment here. "Bringing Legends Back to the Baize" says it all, just a chance for people to see some of the old-timers with no one really interested in the result. Exhibition stuff. Nigej (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

As a note to all - DF147 is now fully banned and blocked due to block evasion, so if you see a similarly acting IP, drop me a line. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Presumably 37.228.240.57 Nigej (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

WSC Brackets

Hello WP Snooker. I'm reaching out to you all regarding the tournament bracket templates:

• {{32TeamBracket-WSC}}
• {{32TeamBracket-WSC2}}
• {{32TeamBracket-WSC2-v2}}
• {{1985 World Snooker Championship Bracket}}

I notice that they are all standard 32-team brackets, along with an different accompanying tables. I would like to make the following proposals:

1. Add the finals match to the tournament bracket for ease of quick readability.
2. Standardize the tables. It's a bit odd that we have four separate tables serving the same function (personally, I prefer the format seen at {{32TeamBracket-WSC2-v2}} and {{1985 World Snooker Championship Bracket}}).
3. Separate the tables into their own template and use {{32TeamBracket-Info}} for the brackets. This will allow both the tables and brackets to be easier to edit.
4. Move the tables into their own subsection titled "Finals", or something similar.

If there is consensus to implement these proposals I would be willing to do so myself, as they would be fairly easy to implement. Additionally, if there are any features you would like to add, I can see what I can do to implement those as well. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 17:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on tables so far, Pbrks. There was a concern expressed at the FAC discussion for 1981 World Snooker Championship that the final table used there doesn't satisfy MOS:DTAB and MOS:ACCESS criteria. Will ensuring accessibility be something that you can help with as part of this initiative? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: Sure thing. Accessibility should always be in high priority. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 22:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the first question to answer is whether we need any of them. For other tournaments we have a bracket (or brackets) for the results and then a table for the final. It's not really obvious to me why we need this composite template at all. Nigej (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nigej: Yes, that is exactly what I am proposing. I do not see a need for a composite template. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 22:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. The original WSC template dates back to 2006 and there's no particular reason for us to continue with that style. I don't think there's any accessibility issue with the brackets, just the "final" part. Do we need a template for the "final" or can we just hardwire it like usual? I suppose it forces some sort of uniformity but if that was critical we ought to be the same for all tournaments. Nigej (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. I feel like we are moving onwards simply because it was done that way previously. I recommend making a template for finals, once which is accessible. The 1985 World Snooker Championship article has a good one, but needs spliting from the main draw template. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me that we can surely all agree that the original style (the first two listed here) where the scores are repeated, is a non-starter. As per Talk:2019 World Snooker Championship#Event finals table, I still hate the multitude of boxes in the other two, eg the "final" part of 1985 World Snooker Championship#Main draw. One of the worst tables I've seen on Wikipedia IMO. Nigej (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

---

At a minimum, there seems to be consensus have the bracket and table separate, so I will go ahead and implement that. As for the tables, we have two options. Either

1. Use a template for the tables. This will help with both standardization and editability.
2. Hard code the tables on each page. This will allow more flexibility with the tables, and not everything needs a template.

Thoughts on the two options above? – Pbrks ^(t • c) 03:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems a good approach. I suspect there's consensus to retain a template for the "final". There's probably not consensus for the style of that but the obvious approach is to follow, say, 1985 World Snooker Championship and implement that, leaving the discussion about the style of the "final" for another day. (although I can't work out why we have "Players" four times down the left hand side, on a row that has scores and above a cell that says "Frame") Nigej (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The 1985 template doesn't explain what the numbers in parentheses are, i.e. breaks. Otherwise, it's as good as any of the others, I think. Per the point above, it's probably better to omit the word "players" from the table. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

My main criticism of say the final table at 1985 World Snooker Championship is that all I see initially is a mass of boxes with numbers, brackets, daggers, etc. Whereas when I look at 2021 UK Championship#Final my eyes are drawn to the names of the finalists and the result. Shouldn't we be helping readers find the important information. Nigej (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, that 2021 UK Championship is good. On reflection, we're probably trying to pack too much info, which is of limited interest to most readers, into some of the finals boxes. There are alternative places that people can visit for that, for example cuetracker, a site that we, but not the WPBSA, label as not reliable. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

One of the things cuetracker does give is the "match progress" which is arguably of more interest than the detailed frame scores, but not easily seen in our current system. Nigej (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The big issue of that UK table is the screen reader functionality. That's why there are so many boxes in 1985WSC. Yeah, that isn't perfect, the repetition of players is a good spot, but if you used a screen reader on 2019UK it would read aloud: "4–79 (79), 133–0 (133), 25–90 (61), 80–19, 12–92, 40–67, 60–47, 17–85 (78)", which as you can imagine fails WP:ACCESS. I suspect this might be something we need to get someone with more ACCESS info to comment on, as I do prefer a smaller and less overbaring template. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me that reading aloud "4–79 (79), 133–0 (133), 25–90 (61), 80–19, ..." is likely to be much more intelligible that reading aloud "Davis 88† 93† (87) 49† 65† ..." (although I've got no idea how these things work). Nigej (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any of us do. I suspect we need greater help from WP:ACCESS. When you run 2019UK on a screenreader (which I did), it says "Afternoon, 4 minus 79, 79, 133 minus 0, 133, 25 minus 90, 61..." which isn't great. At least on the other style it pauses, highlights the individual box and says the number, even if that number is still a bit unintellegible. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

One thing that it shows is that you need a decent screenreader. Presumably the one you used would convert "Neil Robertson lost 2–6 to amateur player John Astley" into "Neil Robertson lost 2 minus 6 to amateur player John Astley". Endash is not the same as a minus sign, not here anyway. The other issue is that we clearly need to be aware of the 1 in a million using a screenreader and to improve their experience, but if that means that it's significantly worse for the other 999,999 then that doesn't make sense to me. Nigej (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I have finished replacing the tournament brackets, and have nominated the composite templates for deletion. For now, the table portions have been moved to their own templates: {{WSC table}}, {{WSC2 table}}, {{WSC2-v2 table}}, and {{1985 World Snooker Championship table}}. In regards to the best format for these tables, the long and short of it is that there is a lot of information in these tables, and with that comes issues. Long strings of text are rough, but so is a table with 100 different cells. If we want to be in compliance with MOS:ACCESS, the best course of action would be to split the table into several tables (although editors generally do not like this). I'll make a mock-up of what this might look like; I don't know how nice it will look, but maybe it won't be too bad? I'll try to make several versions; hopefully there will be one we can all agree upon. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 21:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, do you have a link to the new template you're proposing? It's not mentioned anywhere here in the talkpage discussion as far as I was able to see, and it would be good to have as a reference. :) -- CitroenLover (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

To the table? No, not yet. Still playing with things on my sandbox. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 15:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

That was the link I was referring to, thanks! -- CitroenLover (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)