Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2019/March
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Article alerts
Hi all, just a reminder that there is a tonne of outstanding items to be looked at on our alerts page: All project participants should watchlist this alerts page. Articles for deletion
- 08 May 2024 – Gerrit bij de Leij (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Lee Vilenski (t · c) was closed as redirect by Liz (t · c) on 15 May 2024; see discussion (3 participants)
Featured article candidates
- 08 Apr 2024 – 2023 World Snooker Championship (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Lee Vilenski (t · c); see discussion
Featured list candidates
- 10 May 2024 – Snooker world rankings 1985/1986 (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by BennyOnTheLoose (t · c); see discussion
Good article nominees
- 09 May 2024 – 2006 World Snooker Championship (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Lee Vilenski (t · c); start discussion
- 08 May 2024 – Liang Wenbo (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Lee Vilenski (t · c); start discussion
- 18 Mar 2024 – 1950 World Snooker Championship (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by BennyOnTheLoose (t · c); start discussion
- 15 Mar 2024 – 1949 World Snooker Championship (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by BennyOnTheLoose (t · c); see discussion
- 14 Jan 2024 – 2024 Masters (snooker) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Lee Vilenski (t · c); start discussion
- 07 Aug 2023 – 2022 Northern Ireland Open (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Lee Vilenski (t · c); see discussion
- 24 Apr 2024 – World Women's Snooker Championship (talk · edit · hist) GA nominated by BennyOnTheLoose (t · c) was promoted by Lee Vilenski (t · c), see discussion
If you aren't already watchlisting, I'd suggest watching this page to see the new Snooker content. If you have experience revieing DYKs or GAs, feel free to review any of the suggestons. If not, but you think you might have a go, feel free!
There's also a peer review of Triple Crown ongoing, which a place to basically speak comments regarding the article, and how to improve it. I would appreciate anyone who would like to help out the project by either taking a look at these articles, or nominating their own (I would be happy to review anything else that people have/want clarification on.)Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Seeding lists
Hi all, I've seen quite a few of these types of tables show up - Do we really need them? The prose and tables are enough, we don't need some more Statistics-cruft added to this. An example (as seen currently on 2019 World Snooker Championship) is shown below:
| Rank | Player | Total Points | Event Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Ronnie O'Sullivan
|
1,104,000 | 
| |
| 2 | Mark Selby
|
1,097,225 |
| |
| 3 |  Mark Williams
|
1,005,000 |
| |
| 4 |  John Higgins
|
755,500 |
| |
| 5 |  Mark Allen
|
682,000 |
| |
| 6 | Judd Trump
|
646,500 |
| |
| 7 |  Neil Robertson
|
557,500 |
| |
| 8 | Kyren Wilson
|
542,725 |
| |
| 9 | Barry Hawkins
|
454,500 |
| |
| 10 |  Ding Junhui
|
443,500 |
| |
| 11 | Shaun Murphy
|
370,000 |
| |
| 12 | Stuart Bingham
|
363,500 |
| |
| 13 | Stephen Maguire
|
327,500 |
| |
| 14 |  Luca Brecel
|
326,600 |
| |
| 15 | Jack Lisowski
|
321,600 |
| |
| 16 | David Gilbert
|
300,000 |
| |
- I'd be more than happy to see this go. I think this sort of table started with the PTC events. Players Tour Championship 2013/2014 – Finals was perhaps the first use, explaining where the seedings came from. Later the results bit was added. 2016 China Championship (snooker) is another example of where the initial idea is useful. I'd say that if the seedings/entry is based on the world rankings then we can do without it. We have other pages which detail the world rankings. If the seedings/entry is based on the 1-year list or some other complex system, you could argue that the table is useful. What we don't really need is the "event status" column which simply replicates what comes below. Nigej (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pretty much exactly how I feel. I don't have a problem if they aren't based on the world rankings (Which could be hard to explain with prose), but not in every tournament. I've removed them for now, however, I want some consensus on this for future articles. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- On another note, I've also seen some removals of seeded top 16 players from articles (such as 2019 Gibraltar Open). Should this be the norm to have the top seeds listed, or removed? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pretty much exactly how I feel. I don't have a problem if they aren't based on the world rankings (Which could be hard to explain with prose), but not in every tournament. I've removed them for now, however, I want some consensus on this for future articles. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Players Tour Championship 2012/2013 – Finals, Players Tour Championship 2013/2014 – Finals, 2015 World Grand Prix, Players Tour Championship 2014/2015 – Finals, 2016 World Grand Prix, Players Tour Championship 2015/2016 – Finals, 2016 China Championship (snooker), 2017 World Grand Prix, 2017 Players Championship (snooker), 2018 World Grand Prix, 2018 Players Championship (snooker), 2019 World Grand Prix, 2019 Players Championship (snooker), 2019 Tour Championship. The first 4 seems ok, then the "Event Status" got added. Nigej (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- The event status field annoys me. It seems irrelevant, as it's listed in several sections otherwise. I also saw one of these pop up on the 2019 World Snooker Championship article, which I swiftly reverted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think we can delete those columns. I have made a start at 2019 Tour Championship (as the most visible). Waiting to see if it attracts some comments. Nigej (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- The event status field annoys me. It seems irrelevant, as it's listed in several sections otherwise. I also saw one of these pop up on the 2019 World Snooker Championship article, which I swiftly reverted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with removing the seeding lists in the case of tournaments that just use the standard world ranking list to seed. If there is a different seeding criteria there may be an argument to include it, especially if it is compiled over several events. Betty Logan (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Could we add something like the following to these tables? If we have colours, we need to have a key to explain what they mean.
Event winner Event Runner-up
- We do need to be a little careful regarding not falling foul of MOS:COLOR. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Personally I'd prefer to see the seeding list section as just a seeding list. Nothing to do with results. Nigej (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Nigej. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the "event status" columns from the above noted articles, per consensus here. Nigej (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Good job! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
World rankings articles more detailed
How would it be if the articles with the world rankings (currently Snooker world rankings 2018/2019) were designed in more detail. This means, if not only the cut-off rankings, but also all other world rankings would be displayed. This could look similar to the German Wikipedia. --BlueFire10 Let's talkabout my edits? 11:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's worth mentioning, but the world rankings for the rest of the events don't have any actual effect on the season (As they don't change the seedings lists), and articles mention specifically the individual revision of the rankings. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- It would be a lot of effort to keep such a list up to date and how many people would need/look up this information? I am not opposed to doing it but if somebody is that enthusiastic about working on snooker articles the amount of work that it would require could be put to better use. Betty Logan (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- An advantage of doing this would be to confirm that the "High ranking" parameter in {{Infobox snooker player}} is actually correct. Currently this information is largely unreferenced. Nigej (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- How exactly does this get updated? It seems as though NuclearMissile updates this pretty much single-handedly at present. Is there a way of doing this with templates that would be easier to update? (Say, each player has an ID, so say |MWilliams_event1=£10,000 |MWilliams_event2=£7,000 etc)? and denote the events later in the template? Might be a bit simpler to update (I always look at it, and know I'll screw it up) if it were a bit easier to understand how to update. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Snooker world ranking points 2018/2019 uses a template based system. However, a lot of the work at that article is replicated at the other article. It might be possible to combine the two systems i.e. create a template where all the data can be entered just once and then accessed by the two articles. The ranking articles take up a lot of editor time because of the huge amounts of data entry so if we could effectively halve the workload by pooling the data entry that would be great. Too late for this season but could be worth considering for next season. Betty Logan (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- This was exactly what I was talking about. This should be pretty easy to invoke on the secondary page. Especially as this already generates the cutoff points totals. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Snooker world ranking points 2018/2019 uses a template based system. However, a lot of the work at that article is replicated at the other article. It might be possible to combine the two systems i.e. create a template where all the data can be entered just once and then accessed by the two articles. The ranking articles take up a lot of editor time because of the huge amounts of data entry so if we could effectively halve the workload by pooling the data entry that would be great. Too late for this season but could be worth considering for next season. Betty Logan (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)