Talk:List of snooker tournaments

Player Tour Championship

Resolved

This is currently listed in the pro-am section. I think maybe we should list it under the ranking tournaments section since it offers ranking points. It is essentially a ranking event with an amateur leg - the world championship also has an amateur leg before the professionals come in. Similarly with the Chinese Open they have a wildcard round to allow some Chinese amateurs to compete. Finally, it is being staged by the WSA - the professional body of snooker, so overall that qualifies it is an event being staged by the professional body. I think first and foremost it is ranking event with an amateur leg rather than a traditional pro-am where all professionals and amateurs start out in the initial line-up. Betty Logan (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, will make it if no objections were raied. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Article structure

I'm wondering if we should restructure this as a table, because at the moment when an event becomes a ranking event we lose the information about its invitational format (see the World Championship pre 1974, UK pre 1984, Irish Masters etc). Betty Logan (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there's incosistency in the format column asfor example "professional" and "ranking" are different. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I used "professional" because some events aren't ranking and they aren't invitational, and they aren't "open" because they're restricted to professional players only, so I don't really know how to describe them. I suppose we could just say "Non-ranking", but I avoided that since "Non-ranking" tends to be associated with invitationals, but I have no objection to that if you think it would be better. I don't really mind what terminology we use, but obviously needs to be a distinction between ranking, invitationals and non-ranking professional events. Betty Logan (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the "professionals" to "non-ranking" for the time being. Feel free to jump in and change it though. Betty Logan (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ranking tournaments are ordered chronologically by when they attained ranking status, the rest by age. Dates are presented as seasons from 1976 when the world rankings were introduced and defining the snooker season. I split the World Matchplay years into rows since the dates represent three different versions of the tournament, rather than just a chronology of it. The tables are complete so feel free to look over them and make any necessary alterations. They're ready to go into the article now, but I will leave that until tomorrow so they can be checked over.

Looks good, will say one thing, are you going to use the existing headings of Withdrawn tournaments etc or not. Cause if not the distinction needs to be made clear on the table Withdrawn Professional tournaments Also Power Snooker should be various locations or London, China Germany Singapore etc when it is confirmed. So at the mo for Power snooker it should have London there for now KnowIG (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've devised it as five tables so they can go separately under the headings. I think it works better split into distinct tables rather than one gigantic table. As for Power Snooker I put in "TBA" since I didn't know if the location had been announced - I'll blank it and then editors that know the details can fill that in.Betty Logan (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

We're missing the Championship league from the list, which is a rather major non ranking tournament purely for the amount of money and players involved and the fact that it takes up a lot of time in the second half of the season, hence why it seams top heavy with events at the momement. KnowIG (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, I've added it in now. Betty Logan (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Is everyone ok with this now? If there are no objections I will transfer the tables to the article after lunch. If you want to make any changes then feel free to edit the tables, it will be better to sort it out now. Betty Logan (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Variant snooker

I see the snooker variants (Power Snooker/6 red) have been removed from the article. While I agree they don't belong in the standard format sections since they don't follow the traditional rules, do you think we should add a section to the bottom for variant formats? Some of them could end up being a prominent feature of the calender so we need to have a list of them somewhere. Betty Logan (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think about this, but if they have a seperate section that's ok with me. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Pro-Ams

Should we consider changing the format of the Paul Hunter Classic and World Series from "Pro-Am" to "Invitational"? After all, they never had open entry like the English Open where any amateur could enter; they were basically invitationals for professional players that allowed in a couple of local wildcards. There are many tournaments that have this format now, especially in China like the Wuxi Classic and the Hainan Classic, so some of the format labels are inconsistent. Betty Logan (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, but they should remain in the Pro-Am section. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 09:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Premier League

The Prem. League from next season will be played under variant rules (ball in hand, three miss cap) so I moved it to the "Variant" section. I though about creating two entries, but decided against that since the new version will no doubt continue under the present Premier League article, so I didn't really want two separate entries linking to just one article, even though technically it is two different tournaments now. I've tried to create distinction between the professional rules and the new format, but if it's still not clear feel free to add further clarification. Might be worth adding a note to explain the new format. Betty Logan (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-order

I was thinking of re-ordering this list alphabetically. The current section is ordered by calendar order, while the withdrawn section is ordered by the age of the event. Neither of these are intuitive orderings for readers unfamiliar with the sport, whereas alphabetic order would make it easier for everyone to find an event without having to work their way down each list. Any objections? Any thoughts? Betty Logan (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No objection, but how would you handle tournament, where the name has changed over the time. For example the World Open was originally known as Professional Players Tournament, than Grand Prix and for three years LG Cup. Would they also included, and linked to the current name or omitted altogether? And I thin (1) the proper snooker and snooker variant tournaments shouldn't placed in the same section and (2) and the current tournaments should have a different background colour. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 14:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Six-red World Championship

There are two Six-red World championships, the regular event sponsored by Sangsom which resides at Six-red World Championship and a one-off event sponsored by 888.com which resides at 888sport.com Six-red World Championship. These are two completely different tournaments with no connection to each other. Both have entries in the table, one at List_of_snooker_tournaments#Alternative_forms_of_snooker and the other at List_of_snooker_tournaments#Alternative_forms_of_snooker_2. The regular Sangsom event is identified simply as the Six-red World championship in the table while the 888.com event is identified as the 888.com Six-red World championship in the table to distinguish it from the Sangsom event. While it may be the case that tournaments are not generally identified by the sponsor it is important that the two tournaments are distinguishable from each other i.e. it is confusing to have two different entries both called the Six-red World Championship. In view of that including the sponsor's name for the one-off event adds clarity. Betty Logan (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The sponsor name is the only one listed, making it out of place, also there is a more than adequate link to the correct article next to the name of the tournament in the year specific link. Having both (previously) link to the same article is over-linking. The inclusion of the sponsor name is out of place as no other tournament does that. Omitting the sponsor name is not a confusing way of presenting the information, listing clearly in the Pro-Am section and adequately linking to the correct article in the year link, is more than adequate and creates minimal if any confusion. The actual article linked to does not include the sponsor name in the title, and snooker articles unless where this is unavoidable and the linked to article title is of the sponsors name do not use the sponsor name as the primary name. This is creating unnecessary disambiguation where none is needed. Stick to the name of the actual article linked to, do not go creating unnecessary confusion when it can be easily avoided. Having the sponsor name is not (generally) done in snooker articles, and this inclusion potentially creates confusion, as the linked to article title does not include the sponsor name. The format of tournaments change over time and they do not have clunky unnecessary sponsor names added. This is a wholly unnecessary addition. Sport and politics (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I am aware what is usually done on snooker articles since I have edited them for years. As I have explained, this particular sponsor is included since there are two tournaments with the same name and they need to be distinguished form each. Since you yourself were confused, enforcing a rule purely for the sake of enforcing rule which results in making something more confusing is not good practice. Since both tournaments had 2009 events then the year alone is not enough to distinguish between the two tournaments. Also, while we generally try to avoid including the sponsor's name it is not unprecedented: we have the LG Cup in there (LG stands for Littlewoods Group), the Yamaha Organs Trophy, the Strachan Open, the Bensen and Hedges Ireland Tournament and the Lucan Racing Classic—all tournaments which are identified by including the sponsor in the name of the event. If you remove the sponsor's name then it becomes difficult to adequately identify the tournament. It is not ideal but we have to be pragmatic about it. In this particular case we don't need to worry about the sponsor changing because it was a one-off event. Betty Logan (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The addition of the sponsor name was what caused the confusion not the removal or absence of the sponsor name. In some cases tournaments are not known by anything other than the sponsored name and/or did not have an unsponsored name. This addition is clearly a 'bolt on' sponsor name and the unsponsored name is obvious as shown by the article title. The inclusion of the sponsor name is what is causing the confusion not the absence. If there is an need to include the sponsor name then combine this with the other tournament and identify this as a Pro-am tournament, in the same way that sponsor names of tournaments are included and include the table inthe same way. Having it is the current format with the weird unlinked sponsored name which does not match the article title, is just out and out confusing and inconsistent. Sport and politics (talk) 09:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Having the sponsor's name in the tournament name does not cause the confusion; having two six-red world championships is what causes the confusion. And for the record the primary name for this tournament did include the sponsor's name as you can see at [1]. The reason it was redirected is because the event was held only once and it was simply redirected to the year article at 2009 Six-red World Championship where we clarify it is the 888.com event and not the Sangsom event. The Sangsom event for that year is at 2009 Six-red World Grand Prix. Combining the two entries would introduce an inconsistency into the table: each unique tournament has its own entry. Since the 888.com tournament is not part of the same lineage as the Sangsom tournament then it does not make any sense to combine the entries. As far as I can see your only argument for removing the sponsor's name is because we generally don't include the sponsor's name, but including it here causes no problem in this case (since the event was only held once and therefore the sponsor will not change over time) and including the sponsor helps to distinguish it from another tournament with the same name. Readers are best served by making it clear these are separate tournaments. Betty Logan (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is this stylising as 888sport.com 6Red World Championship and is instead being stylised as 888sport.com Six Red World Championship. The latter is no name or stylisation the tournament is known by. The section the combined table was included under simply stated "alternative formats" it was clearly listed as a separate tournament in that table. I see no constructive proposals, other than combining the six red tournaments in one table, to try and move onwards. The current format is clearly not helpful as shown by the fact there is a discussion occurring about it. A third opinion is needed as there is clearly limited moving from a position and limited preparation to accept constructive proposals put forward. This will simply go round and round, so lets avoid that and get a third opinion before we simply go round and round. In simple terms all of the tournaments are of the six red format and both claim to be a 'world championship' separating them and having odd naming causes unnecessary confusion. Sport and politics (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Just because they are both called the "Six-reds World Championship" does not make them the same tournament. They have an entirely different lineage. The 888.com event had nothing to do with the Sangsom tournament so it does not make any sense to add it to the entry for the Sangsom event. They are entirely two different tournaments that just happen to have the same name. Just because two tournaments share a name does not mean the entries should be merged since this is not how the article is structured. Two different tournaments should be represented by two different entries. I think a third opinion would be helpful at this stage. You could also post a request at WT:SNOOKER too if you want to expand the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Background

To help aid understanding of this dispute I will try to outline the nature of the problem as neutrally as possible. In 2008 a new format was introduced called "Six-red snooker" along with a tournament called the "Six-red International", sponsored by Sangsom and held in Thailand. The following year (2009) Sangsom staged the event again but changed its name to "Six-red World Grand Prix". Also in 2009, another Six-red event was staged and called the "Six-red World Championship". This was sponsored by 888sport.com and held in Ireland and had nothing to do with the Sangsom event. They were completely independent events. At this time we had two tournament articles, the one for the Sangsom/Thailand event at Six-red World Grand Prix and the 888sport.com/Ireland at Six-red World Championship. The 888sport.com event was only held the once and was subsequently dropped. Meanwhile, the Sangsom/Thailand event was held again in 2010 and changed its name for a third time to Six-red World Championship. The article was renamed to Sangsom Six-red World Championship. This is where things became complicated. When the Sangsom/Thailand event was held again in 2011 we renamed that to Six-red World Championship and the one-off 888sport.com/Ireland event to 888sport.com Six-red World Championship (since the regular event was considered the primary topic). Ultimately, since the 888sport.com/Ireland event was held only once we felt it was unnecessary to have an umbrella article at Talk:888sport.com_Six-red_World_Championship, so that article was redirected to the article for the single event at 2009 Six-red World Championship (the 2009 Sangsom/Thailand event remained at 2009 Six-red World Grand Prix under the older tournament name). That is pretty much how it remains to this day.

This article lists each and every tournament that we have an article about, with each tournament having its own entry. In the case where an event is simply rebranded through a sponsor change etc the events are kept together i.e. all the events listed under a tournament entry are part of the same lineage. Since the two Six-red tournaments were separate events with an independent linage they have two separate entries, the Sangsom/Thailand event at List_of_snooker_tournaments#Alternative_forms_of_snooker (identified as the "Six-red World Championship") and the 888sport.com/Ireland event at List_of_snooker_tournaments#Alternative_forms_of_snooker_2 (identified as the "888sport.com Six-red World Championship"). While sponsor names are generally not included, the 888sport.com branding is included here to distinguish it from the Sangsom event.

The above discussion debates whether we need to have two separate entries, and if so do we need the sponsor's name to distinguish between them. Betty Logan (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

A request for a third opinion has been made. If you are providing a third opinion please feel free to add the opinion to this section. Sport and politics (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• I drafted most of MOS:CUE (which also includes naming), mainly to avoid/resolve problems like this. It doesn't contradict general policies and guidelines, but helps apply them to such questions. Here, the recurring tournament is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the one-off tournament is no serious challenger to it. As long as they're disambiguated with a hatnote, all is well. The tournament series can and should remain at the bare name Six-red World Championship since this is what most readers will expect and what most sources are referring to, with Sangsom Six-red World Championship redirecting to it, as well as all the variant names of the event, with and without "Sangsom" prepended to them. Basically, any sane way to refer to that event should redirect people to the proper article, since no one but major snooker geeks are going to know all the names of the event and be able to guess which article title it's at. The problem with using sponsor names as part of article titles (rather than redirects to them) is that they may change at any time (and this is a problem in sport generally, not limited to snooker). For a one-off event like the 888sport.com Six-red World Championship this problem cannot arise, because it happened once and can't retroactively change. Ergo, this is a perfectly usable WP:NATURALDIS article title. That said, it could safely be shortened per WP:CONCISE to 888sport Six-red World Championship, probably, and that should at least redirect there, not be a redlink. Finally, yes, they should remain separate articles, and sections in this list, because they are not related events, but simply share [most of] a name in common [sometimes]. This issue has frequently come up in pool, carom billiards, and some other cue sports. Until semi-recently there wasn't much in the way of a long-term sport governing body in most of these disciplines. Thus there have been various unrelated "Straight Pool World Championships", some of them simply private title-challenge bouts, some organized by BCA and later WPA, others with commercial sponsors.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

3O Response: Hi Sport and politics & Betty Logan, I am responding to the request for a WP:third opinion; though I do note that SMcCandlish has already provided an opinion above, which may obviate the WP:3O process.
Having reviewed the discussion above, it appears that the disagreement is over whether to include the 888sport.com Six-red tournament as a separate entry or to include it with the main Six-red tournament entry; and if separate, how to disambiguate the two. Please let me know if this is an incorrect understanding.
On the basis that these two tournaments are separate, unrelated, entities, my opinion is that they should be included separately. I am also comfortable with the 888sport competition including the sponsor name to facilitate disambiguation / differentiation; even where no other entry includes the sponsor name.
This opinion, therefore, largely aligns with that of SMcCandlish, directly above.
I hope this is of some small help. Please let me know if you have any questions. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm a regular snooker editor, not a 3O volunteer, so the additional input would have been helpful regardless.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input chaps. I will apply SMcCandlish's recommendations by shortening the name and setting up a redirect. EDIT: I see Ryk72 has already done this. Betty Logan (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of snooker tournaments. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528145815/http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/tourn.html to http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/tourn.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)