Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker

Archives (Index)

2019/March 2019/April 2019/May 2019/June 2019/July 2019/August 2020/March 2020/April 2020/May 2020/June 2020/July 2020/August 2020/September 2020/October 2020/November 2020/December 2021/January 2021/February 2021/March 2021/April 2021/May 2021/June 2021/July 2021/August 2021/September 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/May 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/November 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/May 2023/September 2023/October 2023/November 2023/December 2024/January 2024/February

Too wide

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

I have commented my opinions there. Tl:dr team width should be 220, flagicon after round 1. Seedings in tournaments such as this, which are restricted fields, really should be going into the seedings parameters and not the player name parameters, thats what it is for. CitroenLover (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. If you look at this previous discussion you'll see that it was (pretty much) agreed to use this style for the seeds since using the seed parameters is "confusing because the seedings and the scores are the same size and font, to the left and right of the players' names". If we just do as suggested by Nigej and myself, then having "team-width=auto" is no longer a problem.  Alan  (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

What about splitting the last 16 and later rounds into a separate table? It will solve the width issue, and also highlight the later few rounds, which I think most people would be more interested in looking at. It was done this way in the past, especially for the UK Championships with the flat-128 draws, e. g. 2019. AmethystZhou (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't much like that style. Anyway - the problem has now gone away, and I don't mind the flagicons so much now that I've got the previews switched off.  Alan  (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

[Copy of comment from Welsh Open thread as I hadn't been aware of this thread].

I would strongly favour keeping the seeding numbers throughout, using whichever draw bracket format works best visually. It's confusing having to trace back to the start of a 64- or 128- entry draw to see what seed number (if any) the semi finalists are! I can't think of any examples from any sport in any medium where I've seen the seed numbers hidden once you get part way into a draw. Rio309w (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Dates in draw templates

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

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

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

I'm not so worried about what we did in the past. What matters to me is whether the change is an improvement. Is it better for our readers than the old system? If it is better we should keep it, if it's worse or no better we should keep the old style. Personally I don't find the "best of 9" that useful, since it's obvious from the scores, but then I'm not sure the dates are that useful from an encyclopedic point of view. We need to include what's important but generally no more than that. Nigej (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem i see with the dates in draw templates is that it can be very confusing when more than one round is played in a day. When was it played? Was it in the morning, afternoon or evening? Were two rounds played in the same session? Are there other sporting articles that put dates in draw templates? Personally, having the best of X frames removes any of those kind of issues, since that kind of additional context can be included in the summary prose above the template. — CitroenLover (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The question is whether it is useful from an encyclopedic point of view. Does someone look back at an event from 2000 want to know that a match took place on the Wednesday. Probably not. Do they want to know whether it took place on the Wednesday afternoon, even less so. For many years we have put the dates in the World Championship article, see eg 2023 World Snooker Championship#Main draw, but I find it just visual clutter. I'd be quite keen to get of those dates. Nigej (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

For what its worth, I think having the top of a bracket explaining the amount of frames is helpful, simply because it gives you a basis for what happens below (and, if the event is in progress, and you look at the draw, you know how long the match is).

I don't think having the dates of when it happened actually helps you to understand what the bracket says, it's just more information. In the prose, I always like to give the dates of when the rounds takes place, but outside of that it's not really all that relevant. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nigej I do recall the case of the Worlds, but that for me is an obvious exception: matches take place over multiple sessions and often over multiple days, so the dates are necessary to provide the context of when a match starts and ends. This is unlike other tournaments, where matches are short and only the final takes place over multiple sessions [but also only in a single day]. The questions above from me in my first reply were rhetorical, entirely designed to point out the rabbit hole that we would end up going down by putting dates in the draw template, for any other tournament that isn't the Worlds.

@Lee Vilenski Agree on this point. I will leave it a few days and if no one opposes, I'll restore the "best of X" to the pages which had them replaced with dates. -- CitroenLover (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@CitroenLover: Not really a big deal for me either way. I put the dates in the bracket headers for the German Masters since I thought it was useful additional information, rather than the endless repetition of "best of" which is obvious from the scores anyway, and is always stated a number of times in the prose.  Alan  (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The thing about the scores is that it isn't super obvious to a non-snooker reader. "Best of" is only really pertinent to our sport. There's plenty of other sports that have time limits, or scores that can go over the limit (say bowls, where it might be first to 11, but it could finish 12-1). I get to the general reader the info is "obvious", but I don't think it hurts to give this context (especially if the number changes between rounds). In a lot of the articles we write with prose, it's less of an issue, but even then it's no big deal to include.

I'm just not a fan of the dates as after it happens, it doesn't matter what date the match itself took place, and we aren't a TV Guide to show when matches are happening during the event. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: I thought it was useful additional information (but not as a TV guide) because in this case, as with some other tournaments, there are "overlaps" where rounds 1&2 are played on the same day, and rounds 2&3 are played the following day. I don't mind either way, so CitroenLover can go ahead and restore the "best of" repetition with no objection from me.  Alan  (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I've just put the "best of" data back into the brackets for the German Masters, but left the dates info in. Please feel free to revert if you like.  Alan  (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Constant tinkering is more than just a nuisance — it's a deterrent to other editors contributing. The quality of tournament articles is markedly deteriorating over this, to the point where many will struggle to reach GA or FA status in the future. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I've now gone ahead and removed the dates from draw templates where they appeared in this seasons' articles. CitroenLover (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Fully agree with this. The content and presentation of most tournament pages (especially the Worlds) has been both excellent and consistent for years. But in the most recent pages there have been several minor changes that have really jarred as a frequent reader.

Please can we at least keep this year's Worlds page to the same excellent standard and format that's been reliably used for many years now? Rio309w (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I've got to say that I disagree about whether our tournament pages have been "excellent" in the past. Personally I find the "final" table at, say, 2023 World Snooker Championship#Main draw extremely poor. Boxes, numbers, symbols, bold, brackets, etc. Just confusing. Also the original post here was a complaint about the inclusion of dates in the draw templates. But for some unknown reason we include the dates in the World Championship. What's the logic in that? No logic at all, we're just doing it because we did it last year. Nigej (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The thing about the big table is that it's accessible. A lot of our finals tables are strings of frame scores that are reasonably difficult to follow, even if they look nice (In comparrison with say 1999 World Snooker Championship#main draw. I can't say I have any thoughts on whether or not we include the dates in the draw template, it does seem a bit overkill, but it's hardly super distracting. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

WST player template

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

• comparing the old URL: https://wst.tv/players/jimmy-white/
• with the new URL: https://www.wst.tv/players/6100064a-0ea4-4a0c-b8ee-0e2ddaa3def4

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

I've just updated Jimmy White's article as above, and it works OK.  Alan  (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

We probably need to get a template editor in. As this is a bit of a change, we could probably rework the template to request the info from Wikidata, rather than define it locally. I'll see if I can grab someone. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I put up a thread at WP:URLREQ Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The response there doesn't look very promising. Looks like there's a lot of changes that have to be made manually. However, for the WST player template it's easy to use the archive numbers from the List of snooker players article. Of the 616 players in the list, 262 have references with working archives.  Alan  (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I do think we should send an email through to them. I'll see if I can send something through this week, it's important for their website visibility that links from Wikipedia are live. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that you won't get any response from WST. It might be better to contact their software suppliers direct. There are two companies involved. One is https://urbanzoo.io/ and the other is https://www.imgarena.com/.  Alan  (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I e-mailed them a month ago about the broken links in their news articles and specifically mentioned the problem with Wikipedia, but no response. :( AmethystZhou (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Not surprising. I've sent them a number of emails since this nightmare started, and have never had a response or even an acknowledgement.  Alan  (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Should we implement a new "snooker.org template"? Many of the past player pages have disappeared from WST, and they also don't have player profiles for non-main tour players. AmethystZhou (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a nice thought. You would need access to Hermund Årdalen's database, since he assigns a number for each player. i.e. Jimmy White is number 20.  Alan  (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

That's actually less of an issue than you'd think, as those numbers are (I believe) already handled on WikiData. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, it's this one: P4502 I'll see if I can figure out how to make the template... AmethystZhou (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to the existing {{WST player}} template, I have created the new {{snooker.org player}} template! AmethystZhou (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Just tried that out - works well.  Alan  (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

...and I've added it to the "External links" section of the Jimmy White article (with no parameters) and the Class of '92 article. Works perfectly.  Alan  (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it pulls the article name and cross-reference it to Wikidata, so unless there's some error in Wikidata or the entry doesn't exist, you don't need to manually specify the snooker.org ID. Same as the WST player template! AmethystZhou (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

External links on player pages

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

Can we establish a "standard list" of links for the player pages? I'd like to propose including WST and snooker.org, and removing GlobalSnooker, as the website has been defunct for many years and the links are all very old archives. The {{WST player}} template works great for current players, as well as previous main tour players whose pages are deleted (thanks WST!), where archive links are used instead. WPBSA (e.g. [1]), World Women's Snooker (e.g. [2]), and World Seniors Snooker (e.g. [3]) profile pages could also be included. AmethystZhou (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't remember any previous discussion on these. See WP:EL. My impression is that a large number of Wikipedia external links sections are way out of date, so it would be a useful exercise to go through these. Tend to agree with you that WST and snooker.org are useful. Probably not GlobalSnooker. We should consider WP:ELNO #1, ie if they don't contain useful information "that is already or should be in the article." then they shouldn't be included. Nigej (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

WST and Snooker.org is all we need, provided they only play snooker. As Nigej said, ELNO is the place to check. Things like official websites are fine, and say they also played pool, their Matchroom sport/AZBilliards profile would be suitable. These can get very long if you just let any old link live. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with all above. When I added the snooker.org player template to the Jimmy White article, I noticed that there's a lot of entries in the "External links" section that should probably be removed.  Alan  (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Something like https://seniorssnooker.com/player/jimmy-white/ fails ELNO since it's just a brief biography. Quite a few links got added as a form of advertising (although that's clearly not allowed). And random youtube videos make so sense at all. Nigej (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! What about IMDb for players like Ronnie O'Sullivan? AmethystZhou (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'd leave it out. WP:IMDB-EL says its ok, but also says it's not a reliable source. The question I suppose is whether the link contains sufficient extra information that isn't "already or should be in the article." I'm not sure it ever will for a snooker player. Nigej (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It was probably added to Ronnie's page because of the several documentary films he was in, but they are not significant enough to need the IMDb link. I'd agree that it's better to leave those for actors, etc. AmethystZhou (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a "use best judgement". If he was also an actor/director, sure. Him having some credits isn't really enough. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Just had a look through the IMDb pages for ROS, and I don't think there's anything there of any value that isn't already mentioned in the prose. I think it should be removed.  Alan  (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going through the category of snooker players by nationality to clean up the external links section. Although I'm leaving the British and Chinese last as there are A LOT of those! AmethystZhou (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Talkpage archives for this page

I've noticed that we have a lot of discussions on this main page, and we're due an archiving exercise. However, I also notice we have two archiving formats: one which seems to be old-style [eg Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3 etc] and then a new style where each month of discussions is archived and categorised per year. Personally I find that the style of archiving by year and by month to be much more cluttering than just creating "mega-archives" like the old system. Also, the old style keeps the order of discussions rather than splitting them out into lots of smaller archives. Could we look to clean up our archives a bit, just to make finding discussions a bit easier? Looking through a bigger archive is easier than searching lots of tiny archives. 👍 -- CitroenLover (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The order doesn't exactly change. They just get archived when they get stale, the same as another type of archive. I much prefer it being set up by month so I know where to look. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Tournament Final: 50+ Breaks in Frame Scores

Recently I have spotted some differences in the treatment of 50+ break scores in frames during finals of tournaments: namely putting the break on the right of the frame score, which I will call it "the old way" (example: 2019 Tour Championship); and putting the break on the side of the player who made the break (example: 2024 German Masters), which I will call it "the new way".

From what I have seen, past tournament articles all used the old format, possibly due to relying websites such as snooker.org or cuetracker.net as unofficial sources for frame scores. The new format has only emerged for this season. Unfortunately, this has caused some inconsistencies between old and new articles.

Personally I would favour the old format because I don't think the new format is much of an improvement, and more importantly, changing the formats for the old articles to match the new format would be a hassle. However, I would like some consensus on this issue. Ui56k (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

As ever, we shouldn't worry too much about what we did in the past. The question is which is better? If equal then it's generally best to use the old style. Changing a few hundred "finals" with WP:AWB is not a big job, honestly. I'm happy to do it if that's the consensus. Personally I'm in the "no big deal" category with this one. It does save a little space when there's an ambiguity about which player made the break(s): now it's (56) before and (51) after, whereas previously it was (O'Sullivan 56, Trump 51) afterwards. Nigej (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I think what you're calling the "new way" is clearer for readers and saves space. Also, it lines up with the way the breaks and scores are displayed by WST on their live scoring pages. compare the update I just did for the Welsh Open with this.  Alan  (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

However snooker.org uses the old style https://www.snooker.org/res/index.asp?event=1456 and cuetracker uses something else. So "(98) 98–1, (52) 74–44, (55) 102–0" or "98-1 (98), 74-44 (52), 102-0 (55)" or "98(98)-1, 74(52)-44, 102(55)-0" Can't really the space saving aspect or any of these, except as noted above. Nigej (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

In this particular case there is no space saving, but in many cases there is. Anyway, my preference is for the "new way". I'm interested to know what others think, and am happy to go with the consensus.  Alan  (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

... and I've noticed that User:Ui56k has today been changing some articles back to the "old way", before any consensus has been reached.  Alan  (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Why exactly do we count "50+ breaks". Do sources also do this? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

WST, snooker.org and cuetracker all report 50+ breaks. Whether we need the "count" below is a good question. Personally I can do without it. Does anyone talk about x making n 50 breaks in the final? Nigej (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Good point! I'd be happy to see them left out altogether. Alan  (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

... so this afternoon's score would just be: 98–1, 74–44, 102–0, 106–5, 23–73, 67–4, 59–45, 1–92 Tidier!  Alan  (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

What about century breaks? Nigej (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Well they're noted in the row below, and of course in the centuries section.  Alan  (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

But you wouldn't know in which frame they made the century breaks, though. I'm neutral towards removing the 50+ break count row, but I'd say keep the century break row and 50+ breaks in parentheses in frame scores. AmethystZhou (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

But which style do you prefer?  Alan  (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Definitely the "new style" as it was me that started writing them this way.. AmethystZhou (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

WST does, snooker.org does and CueTracker does.  Alan  (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The question asked above by Nigej: "Does anyone talk about x making n 50 breaks in the final?" is a valid one. I don't think that 50+ breaks are of any interest to most readers, but centuries probably are. So why not just include centuries, and since there can only be one century per frame, then the left/right argument becomes moot. So the final for the Welsh Open would look like this:

Afternoon: 98–1, 74–44, 102–0, 106–5, 23–73, 67–4, 59–45, 1–92

Evening: 24–59, 101–19 (100), 21–101, 68–44, 82–0

 Alan  (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this - I think 50+ breaks are not required for the 'casual' reader and anyone with a deeper interest in snooker will be able to find 50+ breaks elsewhere (whether that is at the World Snooker Tour, Snooker.org or Cuetracker sites) if they really want to know. Steveflan (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, Snooker Scene (Clive Everton era at least) recorded all breaks above 50 with the break in parenthesis after the frame score for the individual player. So the 2024 Welsh Open final would be:

Afternoon: 98(98)–1, 74(52)–44, 102(55)–0, 106–5, 23–73(66), 67(52)–4, 59–45, 1–92(92)

Evening: 24–59, 101(100)–19, 21–101(85), 68–44, 82–0

Of course, earlier editions of Snooker Scene used to record 30+ breaks (centuries were much rarer than recent) - but that would be taking things too far. However, the scoreboard in the commentators booth (known as a fruit machine) does also record 30+ breaks (see bottom right hand corner at https://amazon.clikpic.com/andychubb/images/commentary_box_3422_1.jpg) Steveflan (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly it depends on how much information one wants to convey. The 50+ break count indicates how well a player is breakbuilding and hence playing. On the other hand, 50 is kind of an arbitrary cut-off point as one would usually need at least a 60+ break to clinch a frame in 1 visit. And I suppose non-casuals can just refer to cuetracker for such information.--Ui56k (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

All of these numbers are arbitrary. You actually need 74+ to secure (I don't like the word "clinch") a frame.  Alan  (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It may relate to cricket, where a half century (ie 50) was traditionally regarded as a good achievement and the number of those was reported in a player's career stats. Indeed, the crowd applauded the achievement. In modern snooker no one even notes when a break reaches 50. The only real target is the snookers required stage. As such I'd be quite keen on deleting all the stuff on 50+ breaks (at least in the last 50 years or so) from the "final" section. I'd be keen to retain the centuries. Of course, the text can mention significant breaks of any size. Nigej (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense to me.  Alan  (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nigej: I've removed the 50+ breaks from the Welsh Open final. See what you think and feel free to revert my edit if you like.  Alan  (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm still keen on this, if that's the consensus. Nigej (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks good! I made a minor edit to simplify the century break notes. AmethystZhou (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nigej: The template that we are using for the World Championship still has a "50+ breaks" row at the bottom, and I (and others) have been putting in the 50+ breaks as we have done in previous years. I don't mind this, since the World Championship is a one-off anyway. What do you (and others) think?  Alan  (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Not a big deal for me. As you say, the World Championship is a one-off in many ways. Personally I'd probably be inclined to get rid of the 50-99 breaks since they just add clutter to the table for little benefit. Seems to me there's not much talk about them anyway and this level of detail is perhaps best left to snooker.org/cuetracker. Nigej (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

But if you change the template, it might screw up all the previous tournaments that use it. Probably best left alone.  Alan  (talk) 07:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, we only changed the template a few years back (2019 if I remember rightly when I tried to get the first FA for 2018 World Snooker Championship through). We could easily change the template to only include if the 50+ exists then show, or we could work out some sort of regex to change the template across all of our articles.

I wouldn't be worried about breaking things, I'd rather we had a specific guideline on what we do and don't promote and stick to it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal

Before this discussion peters out, I'd like to propose that we adopt the idea above that we remove the 50-99 breaks from the frame-by-frame scores in the "final" section and also remove the "50+ breaks" line in that section. The logic behind this is that the 50-99 breaks are not very important to our readers and just clutter-up the section. Under this proposal, information on 100+ breaks would remain as it is now. Nigej (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a very sensible proposal, already adopted in the previous and current tournaments.  Alan  (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the 50+ breaks just adds clutter in most cases and makes the frame score hard to read. However, it perhaps is ironically useful for the 2024 Players Championship to illustrate the poor play from both players, with Allen only making two 50+ breaks in the whole match. How about if we don't include 50+ breaks in parentheses, but keep the tally for both 50+ and 100+? AmethystZhou (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Surely that can be dealt with in prose.  Alan  (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. If it's notable, put it in prose. I think this is sensible. Let me know if I can help with cleanup (I have AWB downloaded somewhere) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I've removed these for the ranking events for the current season, to see if I get any complaints. Slight glitch with someone using a tab instead of a space. Also some centuries are before and some after the frame scores, but I've left those for now, won't affect earlier seasons. Nigej (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Brilliant! I've just sorted out the before and after centuries, and added frames for highest breaks. All events for this season are now done.  Alan  (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:SAMESURNAME

In the semi-final section of 2024 Welsh Open, I initially wrote it referring to Gary Wilson multiple times with his full name because MOS:SAMESURNAME says "In an article that is not about either unrelated person with the same surname, continue to refer to them both by their full names." @HurricaneHiggins changed it to only use "Wilson" after the first mention of full name in the same section. I think it's much better than the repeated full names, without causing any confusion. What do you think? Is this worth a discussion at the MOS for a potential change for pages like these? AmethystZhou (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

We have to be careful when we have more than one player by the same last name (Higgins, O'Sullivan, Robertson, etc.) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes that's why I brought up this topic (Gary Wilson / Kyren Wilson). Kyren was knocked out in the last 64 so there's minimal mention of him in the prose, but we have to keep using the full "Gary Wilson" throughout per MOS:SAMESURNAME, and it's a bit silly in the semi-final section where his name comes up multiple times. AmethystZhou (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, @AmethystZhou! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

After we say that Higgins and Gary Wilson faced each other in the semi-final, we don't need to keep referring to "Gary Wilson" repeatedly throughout the match summary. It's clear that we're talking about Gary Wilson here, not Kyren. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Update: I have created a topic over at WT:MOSBIO, your feedback is welcome! AmethystZhou (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Main stage centuries vs Qualifying stage centuries

I'm not sure how this is being handled so seeking clarification!

Currently, the WST holds qualifiers at a different venue several weeks before the main event. But qualifiers featuring highly seeded players are typically held over and played at the final venue during the first day or two of the tournament.

When players make centuries in held-over qualifying matches, do we categorise those breaks as Main stage centuries or Qualifying stage centuries? Because they are sort of both ... they are qualifying stage centuries, but they are made at the final venue during the early stages of the event. This can be confusing to explain, so it would help to have clarity. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It is confusing. We have the Main stage vs Qualifying stage centuries split because that was how WST split them in the old web site. Personally I take the view that there is no such thing as a "qualifying round" (although snooker.org uses that terminology). We have qualifying matches and held-over matches which make up round 1, and then the rest of the event. So I wouldn't use terms like "held-over qualifying matches", I'd use "held-over matches" or "held-over first round matches". See eg https://www.wst.tv/news/2024/february/12/day-one--murphy-feels-the-pinch-/ which doesn't mention qualifier/held-over at all, just "first round" and "last 64". The trouble is that WST is sometimes quite inconsistent in its terminology. Nigej (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I see your point, @Nigej, although WST definitely does refer to "qualifiers" on their Tournaments and Calendar pages. It's been a mess since the flat-128 draws were introduced and then walked back so that the round of 128 became variously "qualifiers," "held-over matches" and "round 1". But maybe it's better not to have a Main stage vs Qualifying stage centuries split at all, but to list all the tournament centuries together as one section? This is especially true now that the highest break prize usually goes to the highest break of the entire tournament, regardless of where/when it was made, so there is little meaningful distinction anymore. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

https://snookerinfo.co.uk/2023-24-centuries/ uses the split, with "Welsh open" and "Welsh open qualifiers". The split does help perhaps if someone wants to understand the chronology of a player's centuries (given that there are generally other events in between). But I guess that that's not really our role and we don't list the centuries chronologically anyway. Nigej (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, we don't construct chronological timelines of players' centuries, instead tracking what centuries were made within tournaments and overall stats like the number of career centuries. So the split doesn't seem to matter much in practical terms for our needs. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally, if the sources don't make a difference, neither should we. It doesn't even need to be consistent. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

However as I noted snookerinfo does make the difference. Nigej (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

When did we make snookerinfo a reliable source for everything? I thought we'd just suggested it would be ok for total century breaks. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Well we are only really using them as a double check on totals, and they are pretty much all we've got since the WST are totally unreliable, and CueTracker is banned.  Alan  (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I had the same question regarding the century breaks section, as well as the prose. Currently we count held-over century breaks as qualifying, but the prose is within the qualifying section. I tend to agree with @Nigej that it's clearer to just call those matches "first round" or even "last 128" because that's what they are. Also combine the century breaks into a single section, as WST no longer distinguish them when it comes to high break prize. AmethystZhou (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

(think there's a typo here - presumably "Currently we count held-over century breaks as main stage). I can see that the high break prize covers all centuries, so perhaps that does lead us to a combined centuries list. However WST doesn't seem to provide a complete list now, so we've become more reliant on snookerinfo for this information. Either way it's no big deal to me and perhaps a combined list does avoid awkward questions about why held-over match centuries are in one list or the other. Nigej (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Oops that was indeed a typo! And yes I wish WST could simply centralize these stats to a single page. AmethystZhou (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's much of a problem with this. The split we make is the same as that made by SnookerInfo which is currently our main source for centuries. This split is down to location, Barnsley and Llandudno for the Welsh Open. So we could just clarify "Main stage centuries" to "Main stage centuries (Llandudno)", and "Qualifying stage centuries" to "Qualifying stage centuries (Barnsley)".  Alan  (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that heldover matches are technically part of the qualifying stage, but centuries made in heldover matches are being categorized under "Main stage centuries" rather than "Qualifying stage centuries." Which is confusing, to say the least. My preference would be to find an encyclopedic way to explain this to readers not necessarily familiar with the ins and outs of how WST does things ... and from that perspective, grouping all the centuries made in a tournament together makes more sense. The exceptions might be the World and UK Championship, where the qualifying stages are more distinct from the main stages. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

OK - so write a sentence to explain it. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill.  Alan  (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need for this kind of attitude here, tbh. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I apologise if I offended you. Not intended. I just don't see this as being a huge problem.  Alan  (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that "heldover matches are technically part of the qualifying stage". There are "qualifying matches" and "held-over matches", which are played at different times/venues. Nigej (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I thought held-over matches were qualifiers that are delayed only because they feature a highly seeded player and/or a local wildcard who may be of interest to audiences at the final venue? I think this is a matter of convenience or cost ... e.g., for a Chinese tournament, it's impractical to fly dozens of low-ranked players to a Chinese venue, only for many of them to crash out without winning a penny. Hence the routine of holding qualifiers at Barnsley or wherever. But ultimately it's all part of the same tournament. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

To me, they're not "qualifiers that are delayed", they're "first round matches that are delayed" Nigej (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

World Snooker Tour generally considers that any held-over matches played at the final venue are "Round One" matches and aren't part of the qualifying round. In general, if a match is played at the defined venue of that tournament and not a separate "qualifying" venue, then its considered to part of the "main stages".

FWIW, against the original topic, the only tournament where there are two "high break" prizes is the World Championship, as thats been the convention that the qualifying rounds are a mini-tournament in of itself, so if someone gets a 145 in the qualifying there, thats deemed the "high break" for qualifying, and doesn't put someone out of pocket if someone gets a 146 in the Crucible. For every other tournament, the high break prize includes any pre-qualifying round that is played. -- CitroenLover (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that the WC has one highest break prize of £15,000 awarded to the player who makes the highest break of the entire event (either qualifiers or main stage). But there are separate bonuses for 147s; last year, it was £40,000 for a maximum at the Crucible, and £10,000 for a maximum in the qualifying rounds. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

1972 Park Drive 1000

The 1972 Park Drive 1000 has been added to John Spencer's page, without a reference. Apart from it being on Cuetracker, the only reference I've found is in Ireland's Saturday Night for 25 March 1972 which says that eight professionals would take part in the tournament on 26 and 27 April at Belle Isle WMC, Leeds. It was due to be shown on Yorkshire Television that Summer. The other details are consistent with the quarter-final draw on Cuetracker. Does anyone have a source for the result of the final being Spencer 3-2 Rea? (It's not listed in the 1972 (or maybe 1973) Park Drive Snooker & Billiards Year Book, which does include the 1972 World Championship.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Only references I've found are from newspaper TV listings: 25 June 1972 Sunday Sun (Newcastle) says the second semi-final of the Park Drive 1000 was to be shown that day between Jackie Rae (sic) and David Taylor; the 1 July 1972 Newcastle Evening Chronicle has a TV listing (at 2.20pm) for John Spencer v Jackie Rae; and the 1 July 1972 Lincolnshire Echo has a TV listing (also at 2.20pm) for The Park Drive 1000 from Belle Isle, Leeds. These likely support the final being broadcast between Spencer and Rea on 1 July but haven't yet been able to find a source listing the result. Andygray110 (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted that edit since its clearly banned user User:DooksFoley147 per WP:DENY. Feel free to re-add it if you think it's suitable. Couldn't find any extra details myself. Nigej (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Some details on the prize money here [4]. Also a German wikipedia version de:Park Drive 1000 which is entirely based on cuetracker but strangely has it in 1973 not 1972. Nigej (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove as unsourced. Something being on a unreliable source is as good as having no sourcing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Until recently cuetracker had this event taking place in 1973 (see https://web.archive.org), hence the confusion noted above. First archived in 2016 but no indication where the information comes from. Clearly the event took place but, as Lee says, we've no source for the results so it shouldn't be added unless we find something. Nigej (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Andygray110 removed the 1973 Park Drive 1000 in 2019 ([5]). DF147 has added it back in with the corrected year of 1972 but still no source. Nigej (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

There were a few more 4 or 8 player tournaments in 1972-73 that are mentioned in Snooker Scene but where we don't have articles. I created one for 1972 Ford Series Tournament recently, as that at least had coverage in multiple sources. The others probably don't merit their own articles, but what do people here think about adding them to the season and/or to the finalists' Career Finals sections? (Examples: 1972 Castle Professional, a round-robin between Reardon (winner), Higgins (second), John Pulman and Bernard Bennett; 1972 Marackville international (Australia), where Charlton defeated Higgins in the final; Pulman and Paddy Morgan were the losing semi-finalsts). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that we don't have any inclusion criteria at the moment, I don't see a problem with adding them to the player articles. I'd be more worried about creating the tournament articles which would little more than stubs with little or no prospect of expansion. The approach at Park Drive 2000 is a good one, where that's possible. I'm wondering whether the Park Drive 600/1000 events could be combined or even added to the "2000" event article (which would then need a rename), although they were not really part of the same series. Nigej (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

There was more on the 1972 Marrickville Professional than I expected, so I made an article for it. I've added a couple of others at 1971–72 snooker season and 1972–73 snooker season. The Castle Professional events seem to have typically been Bernard Bennett plus two others; I'm not sure they even merit a mention in season articles. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

That's really good work. :) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyone able to track down sources for the Willie Smith Trophy in 1971 and 1973, apparently won by Higgins? We have an article for the 1968 edition and mentions in the season articles for 1971–72 (the source for which says Higgins was the defending champion) and 1973–74. Looks like they were all played in Leeds. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Archiving Eurosport URLs

The recent nightmare caused by the WST changing their website shows the importance of archiving references. Eurosport is a useful resource as they often have detail missed by others. But whenever I try to archive any Eurosport page it always captures the geoblocked page instead. This page has over 99,000 captures, so it seems that many people have the same problem. Some Eurosport links have been successfully archived though, like this one. I had a conversation about this with AmethystZhou a while back, but we were unable to resolve it. Does anyone know a way around this?  Alan  (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I assume that archive.org has some servers in places where eurosport.com is available and other servers where it's not. Whether this is under any sort of user control I've no idea. Maybe other archiving sites are available, based in Europe perhaps, which could get round this issue, but I've no idea. Nigej (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

See m:User talk:InternetArchiveBot/Archives/2023#Links going to a Geographic blocked pages where I reported this before. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I've never been able to manually archive Eurosport links without it getting geoblocked. But their automated crawls sometimes were able to archive it correctly. Must be due to servers in different locations. Fortunately for us Eurosport doesn't mess with their urls and the links stay up, similar to the BBC. AmethystZhou (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The .com links are different to the .UK links. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

But eurosport.co.uk just redirects to eurosport.com.  Alan  (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes - the links stay up, but that might not always be so. People are always messing with stuff best left alone.  Alan  (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I just tried ghostarchive.org and it seemed to work OK.  Alan  (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

...interestingly - other than the ones I just did, there are only a few other Eurosport pages archived there; some football, a couple of motorsport pages, and two "geoblocking" pages.  Alan  (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI archive.is works for Eurosport, for example: https://archive.is/KnDdK AmethystZhou (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Good - it's nice to have a couple of options.  Alan  (talk) 11:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to keep an eye on the Eurosport URLs that I have archived using ghostarchive.org and change them to web.archive.org archives if they become available. This would be tidier (I'm pedantic).  Alan  (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't say I care where the info is archived too - so long as it is archived. My knowledge of actually doing this is sending IABot to archive what exists. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Winning margin in the 1955 World Professional Match-play Championship final

Hi, I've started a discussion at Talk:1955_World_Professional_Match-play_Championship#Score_in_the_final; it would be great to see some discussion there. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Lee Vilenski, Nigej, and Armbrust as the three largest contributors to the article; if you would like to express an opinion on this please do. If there is no objection after a few days, I'll make the change I'm suggesting there. Everyone else is welcome to chip in too! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"f" is for female players?

A discussion has just started in Talk:2024 World Snooker Championship. More opinions are needed.  Alan  (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Music

Did anyone know Music at sporting events#snooker existed? Seems like a weird list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

History of World Mixed Doubles

A 1993 entry was added to the World Mixed Doubles page, and I recently discovered that apparently there were more mixed doubles events. However, they seem to be non-professional: Metro article by Phil Haigh mentions four of them in the past, including one in 2008 with Neil Robertson and Reanne Evans playing. The 2022 and 2024 events are "professional" events organized by WST, but would the 1991 and 1993 events count as "professional"? If not, maybe we should split the table into two sections. Does anyone have more info on these? AmethystZhou (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• AmethystZhou the 1991 event was promoted by Barry Hearn as part of his deal with the WLBSA - Snooker Scene for July 1990 says he "hopes to promote [it] with the joint sanction of the WLBSA and WPBSA". It looks from the Tunbridge Wells Courier clipping like the 1993 one was a successor to the 1991 event. (Hendry and Hillyard v John Parrott and Karen Corr, and Davis and Fisher v Jimmy White and Tessa Davidson were shown on Eurosport in September 1993, so looks like it was a tournament rather than a single match.) The four mixed doubles title referred to in the Metro article are probably the ones run by the WLBSA - they are listed in the Team finals section of the Reanne Evans article. There are some press references to Allison Fisher winning three mixed doubles titles - I guess these are the 1991 and 1993 events, plus the one at 1991 World Masters. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for finding the information! I don't have access to the Snooker Scene magazine so perhaps someone else can add those to the Mixed Doubles page. AmethystZhou (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Gratuitous tinkering and introducing errors

I'm usually fairly careful when writing prose for snooker articles, both in terms of grammar and style, and also factual accuracy. But there are a couple of recent editors (and yes, we all know who they are) who seemingly aren't happy unless they've rewritten and tinkered with every single sentence contributed by others, often introducing errors in the process.

E.g., in the 2024 World Snooker Championship article, I wrote that Bai Yulu "forced a re-spotted black in the 17th frame after requiring two snookers, but Kendrick potted the black to win 10‍–‍7". This was changed to "forced a re-spotted black in the 17th frame after acquiring foul points from two snookers, but Kendrick potted the black to win 10‍–‍7". However, the source article notes that "Kendrick hit the black when escaping a snooker on the last red and let Bai back in to force a re-spot." In short, Bai didn't acquire "foul points from two snookers" but obtained 7 points from one snooker when her opponent hit the black, which were enough to tie.

I added a photograph of Fergal O'Brien with the caption "Irish player Fergal O'Brien (pictured) retired after his 8–10 defeat to Mostafa Dorgham. O'Brien had played on the professional tour since 1991." The photo (of course) had to be changed to a different photo, and the caption (of course) rewritten to "After his 8‍–‍10 defeat to Mostafa Dorgham, Irish player Fergal O'Brien (pictured) retired from the professional tour, which he was a part of since 1991." Why? No rationale given for the changes, no actual improvements made to either the image or the prose — it's just endless, gratuitous tinkering driven by a seeming obliviousness to the efforts of others and a stubborn refusal to leave well enough alone.

I could go on at length about all the changes (none of them constructive) made to just one paragraph, and all the errors introduced therein — "Michael Holt lost 6‍–‍10 to Xing Zihao" was changed to "he wad defeated 6‍–‍10 by Xing Zihao" — and material deleted without explanation. But the wider question is this: what's the point in contributing to articles anymore, only to deal with incessant meddling that only degrades the quality of articles? There's no point in engaging in time-consuming efforts to fix issues, only to deal with even more meddling in return. This is all time that could be invested in improving articles. Constructive editing is always welcome, of course, but nothing about any of this is constructive. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, I think "Fergal O'Brien (pictured), a professional since 1991, retired following a 8‍–‍10 loss Mostafa Dorgham." As it gives a reason upfront (his career length and retirement) why we care, and then the details of why.

Whilst it might be hard to see your hard work be changed, it does come a bit with the nature of being on a callaborative encyclopedia.

I think you are doing a grand job. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I made the account in 2011 but only started editing last year, maybe I still don't quite get how one should contribute to Wikipedia exactly. But I see editors (including yourself) come in to an article and make these type of changes often, sometimes not without introducing some small errors such as typos. Also often with minimal discussion or explanation as to the rationale behind why they think it's an improvement. The bottom line here, however, is they are trying to improve an article. Do you honestly think nothing about my edits is constructive?

I find it quite insulting to declare others' good faith efforts as "incessant meddling". I could say the same when others "tinker" with what I have contributed, but I won't, because that's what comes with a collaborative process. Not to mention just because my edit is the last one doesn't mean I own the content and it cannot be changed. AmethystZhou (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@HurricaneHiggins: You say "and yes, we all know who they are". Well I for one have no idea who you are referring to. If you are accusing someone of something, I think you should tell them directly. If you are referring to me, then say so.  Alan  (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

...also, I tend not to edit article prose much, since I'm not very good at it. I concentrate on getting the numbers right in the scores and the century breaks, and correcting errors where I find them. You (HurricaneHiggins) seem to have scared everyone off with your post, since nobody has edited or added to the prose in the World Championship for a couple of days.  Alan  (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Eh? I'm not trying to "scare off" anyone from making contributions — I'm expressing frustration at having repeatedly seen my own contributions gratuitously rewritten for no good reason, in a manner that often degrades the prose and introduces errors. This has been going on regularly for months now. I see no point in spending my valuable time contributing to articles, only to have that material entirely rewritten within hours, without any effort to explain why the changes were deemed necessary. That is neither a collaborative nor a collegial way to approach the process. So I'll be taking a backseat from now on — I'll likely spend more time watching snooker and much less writing about it. Enjoy the World Championship. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries

This is a general request to all editors: Please, when making an edit, put something in the edit summary line to indicate what the edit is for. This is particularly helpful with regard to adding century breaks, especially when there are a number of matches in progress at the same time. Just the name of the player and the score will do. This then makes the "Revision history" page a useful "blow-by-blow" history without having to look at each individual edit, and helps to keep track of the centuries. Also, just putting "ce" or the like in the edit summary line is not very helpful. A little more detail please.  Alan  (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Season infobox

Did something change recently at a source level with the season infobox? Up until recently, on the mobile skin on en.m.wikipedia.org, the season infobox has been displayed normally as it would on desktop. As of now though, it now looks like this (aka the infobox is now stretched across the full width of the page. This obviously makes it difficult to read due to the ridiculous amount of whitespace, which doesn’t sound like it was intended, but i can’t find any recent edits to the template itself that would cause this. — CitroenLover (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be extending to various infoboxes, including ones that have nothing to do with the snooker project, my guess is thar someone changed some css at site level. — CitroenLover (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Infobox snooker player/rankings

I was recently taking a look at the rankings parameter on another one of our projects, and I was wondering how we actually use this. My worry is that we now have 11 other sites that have their own (mostly out of date) versions of this page.

Is there a suitable way we could move this information to WikiData instead? How is this generated? I could talk to someone who knows WikiData to see if we could script it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Redirect didn't work

Earlier today I replaced the "curly" quotes with "dumb" quotes in the 2024 World Snooker Championship article. This then caused the image of Fergal O'Brien to disappear, because the file name contains a curly quote. So I then created a redirect (File:Fergal O'Brien at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2015-02-04 09.jpg) but it doesn't work. What did I do wrong?  Alan  (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The answer is that I don't know. Since the image is presumably stored in commons rather than the English wikipedia, it's perhaps a double redirect issue WP:2R. These don't generally work. Nigej (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, redirects don't work like that when the item isn't held on Wikipedia. I've requested a name change on Commons, which is what will need to happen. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution. How do I delete the redirect I created?  Alan  (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I've deleted it as non-commercial cleanup Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.  Alan  (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

just a note, it was denied. They linked to [6] Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a shame. We just need to be careful not to paste in any "curlies" from quotations in sources, in case somebody does a search/replace. Alternatively, we could get a different image of Fergal.  Alan  (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Good Topics/working list

Hi! This probably won't be of interest to everyone, but if you weren't aware, I keep a track of certain topics of articles to eventually do a push towards the Good and Featured Topics status.

At User:Lee Vilenski/Working List, I've been working on lists for things like the World Snooker Championship (which is almost 75% done now!), the world champions, world number ones, etc. We've finished projects (with a lot of help) on things like the World Professional Match-play Championship, the Tour Championship and the 2018-19 snooker season.

Would anyone be interested if I moved parts of this page out of my userspace (specifically the tables and the like) and into the project space to keep track of how we are getting on? I know not everyone cares about the quality assessment (which I get), but the more I think about it, the more selfish I seem keeping a project based table in my own userspace. I would still update it and the like though, unless you wanted to help. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:SILENCE, I've moved and reimagined it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker/projects Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Dark mode support for performance and ranking timelines

These tables have two main issues when shown in dark mode:

1. The explicitly defined background color for the tournament column can't be changed by darkmode. This is easily fixed by removing the color, setting the boxes as row headers, and setting the plainrowheaders class for the table (example). This causes the background color to change in day theme from #EFEFEF to #EAECF0, but this is not a noticeable difference.
2. The explicitly defined text color #555 can't be changed either. This problem is a little more difficult to fix. I see three possible approaches:
   1. Remove it, rendering that text in standard black instead (and standard white in night theme). This is easy, but loses the styling this project prefers.
   2. Convert the tables to a template and set the night mode color with TemplateStyles. This keeps the styling but is some work.
   3. Throw the skin-invert class at the problem (which uses a CSS filter to invert the colors) This fixes the issue and keeps (a form of) the styling in dark mode, but causes the table to appear slightly different from most tables and would take some effort (and a massive increase in page size) to prevent the other colors (green, orange, etc.) from looking weird. This is slightly easier than #2.

Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 20:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, better idea: We can change the text color to the CSS variable color-subtle. This has a value of #54595D. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so let me make a clear proposal. I would like to use AWB to make this edit to all of your biographies. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 12:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I have AWB access, but I'm not super up on what the regex would be to make that sort of change (all in one go at least). I can take a look, but might take me a bit.

We will want a consensus that the changes are suitable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I just did #555555 --> var(--color-subtle, #54595D) and \|style="background:#EFEFEF;" --> !scope="row" for that page. This probably wouldn't be safe to run on a full page though, and I don't believe AWB has any easy way to edit a section. Thinking... Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)