Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2023/December

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of cue sports media?

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cue sports/Archive 1#List of cue sports media?.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Should qualifying matches count toward tournament highest break?

Should high breaks made during qualifying count toward the tournament highest break? For example, the 2018 World Championship infobox says highest break is a 146 by John Higgins, but Liang Wenbo made a 147 in qualifying. Whereas in the 2023 International Championship, the infobox includes both Zhang Anda's 147 in the final and Ryan Day's 147 in qualifying in the highest break. Should we standardize this for all tournaments to either include or not include high breaks made in qualifying? Or alternatively, use whoever that win the high break prize. I'm not sure if there are reliable sources that report the highest break prize winners to verify this, though. AmethystZhou (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This has come up before. Really the only reason for the high break in the infobox is that there's a prize associated with it. So the person/break noted should relate to the person who won the prize. See https://wst.tv/more-announcements-from-barry-hearn/ from May 2019. From that date we have been including qualifying matches, before that we didn't (as a general rule, there may be exceptions). As you say, there's often no source that explicitly says who won the high break prize, which is not ideal. Nigej (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Exactly, from the beginning of the 2019–20 season, breaks made during the qualifying rounds became eligible for the highest break prize. Previously, only breaks made during the main stage of tournaments were eligible. This could possibly be made clearer. E.g., instead of saying "highest break" the infobox could say "highest break prize." HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Sadly, it's not even as simple as that, as in the world championship there is often a separate highest break prize for that event. It's a bit of a mess. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Newly notability-challenged bios

Anthony Davies

This one has been tagged with {{Notability}}, so is next on the AfD chopping block. The templater noted that they had "checked the British Newspaper Archive, did not find significant coverage", so this one might be difficult to cite better, unless someone has a stockpile of old snooker magazines and other print materials. As with two other recent AfDs, I would be inclined toward keeping because he was a multiple-time national Welsh amateur champion. National am champions at a notable sport usually turn out notable when sufficient research materials are available.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

A quick Google came up with the following: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Hope this helps.  Alan  (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Gerrit bij de Leij

Now this one. Might be more challenging; I don't think he's a national or international am. champion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Maybe you should have a chat with User:BennyOnTheLoose who seems to be the one adding the tags.  Alan  (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, he's not wrong to add them. And some of these that have already been deleted should have been, but some of them are grey-area cases, and I have a concern also about AfD just going with a rather rote deletion pile-on when online sources in particular are not immediately obvious.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Rafał Jewtuch

Not a pro at all, but a four-time national am. champion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

and more....

Reminder that the full list of the project's notability-tagged articles can be found at the cleanup listing, which updates every Tuesday. I'm slowly going through the BLP articles lacking sources, of which there are still about 60, some of which have had a tag to that effect since 2010 or 2011. I've added sources and removed tags in more cases than I've gone on to nominate articles for deletion. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Ahmed Aly Elsayed

Does anyone know why the page for this player is called Ahmed Aly and not his full name? It makes linking a bit non-standard, having to use [[Ahmed Aly|Ahmed Aly Elsayed]] in articles.  Alan  (talk) 08:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

He seems to only be referred to as "Ahmed Aly Elsayed", when you remove Wikipedia (and other wikis, blogs, and forums) from search results [6]. So, I moved the article to his proper name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
The other issue that this highlights is that many users want to link directly to articles even when there's a redirect already in place. You say we're "having to use [[Ahmed Aly|Ahmed Aly Elsayed]]", but actually [[Ahmed Aly Elsayed]] worked perfectly well (even before the move). See WP:NOPIPE, WP:NOTBROKEN, MOS:NOPIPE. In tournament articles we should be using the name of the player at that time. The fact that the Wikipedia article might be called something different, is not relevant and is sorted out through pipes and redirects. Nigej (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks to SMcCandlish for moving the article.
@Nigej: Understood, and I'll keep that in mind. However, this was an odd one. I use some code that identifies which players need to have a piped link (e.g. [[Mark Allen (snooker player)|Mark Allen]]) and those who don't (e.g. [[Ronnie O'Sullivan]]), and Ahmed Aly Elsayed didn't seem to fit into either category. In fact he might have been the only player whose name and article name were different in this way.  Alan  (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
He really isn't the only one. Players change names quite a bit, see someone like Billy Joe Castle had changed their name, we should not pipe to avoid a redirect (for lots of reasons that I won't go into). VE is a bit of a pain, as it does sometimes enforce a piped link, but as a rule, we don't need to do so. It's also worth noting that sometimes we do need to just move articles when the page in question isn't suitable at it's current location. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Still on the subject of Ahmed Aly Elsayed, does anyone know for sure what his surname is? It is either "Elsayed" with "Aly" being a middle name, or it's double-barrelled "Aly-Elsayed". I've looked at various sources an can't get a definite answer. In the WST players' list he's under "A" and that's where we have him, but the Woeful Software Team are spectacularly unreliable, since, on their (awful) live scores site, they have him listed as "Ahmed Elsayed". So the question is: should he be moved from "A" to "E"?  Alan  (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, I tend to think if there is a confusion, we should go with third party sources, snooker.org and WPSBA both list it as a non-hyphonated full last name "Aly Elsayed". AZBilliards and a few other sources just say "Aly" as a last name. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Ahmed Aly Elsayed's last name?

Can someone that's familiar with Egyptian names weigh in here? Some sources ([7][8]) use "Elsayed", and some ([9][10]) use "Aly". Surely the latter can't be right, if anything it would be "Aly Elsayed"? AmethystZhou (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Have you read #Ahmed Aly Elsayed above. Nigej (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
WST have him listed under "A" for "Aly Elsayed" and so have we (so far).  Alan  (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I merged these threads, since it's pointless to WP:TALKFORK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 

Thor Chuan Leong/Rory Thor

I'm just wondering whether we should be moving Thor Chuan Leong to Rory Thor. If he does now prefer the Rory Thor then WP:NAMECHANGES perhaps applies: "we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ("reliable sources") written after the name change."

snooker.org seems to have used Thor Chuan Leong up to the English Open Qualifiers (6-8 Sep 2023) [11] and switched to Rory Thor from the International Championship Qualifiers (18-23 Sep 2023) [12]. WST as usual is quite inconsistent but seems to be using Rory Thor recently. Other sources are also inconsistent. We could just wait and see, perhaps things will be clearly in a few months. Nigej (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to be consistent and use one or the other, but not both. Maybe somebody should ask him. He's on facebook apparently, see this. I don't do social media but surely somone in here does.  Alan  (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree that for a particular period we should be consistent. I see that we used Rory Thor for 9 events back in 2016 and 2017 but otherwise have used Thor Chuan Leong. You may be right, perhaps we should use Thor Chuan Leong for a little longer. Just seems unsatisfactory that we seem to be using a different name to that given in our sources. Nigej (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I lived and worked in Hong Kong for a couple of years back in the 1980s, and many Chinese people give themselves "nicknames" to make things easier for westerners. But they are just that - nicknames. In some cases the nicknames stick, as in the case of Marco Fu whose real name is Fu Ka-chun. Not sure about Thor yet. I think that, for now at least, we should stick to using his full name.  Alan  (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Whether it's his real name or not is not really relevant for us. It's what reliable sources use. We use Tiger Woods but whether it's his real name doesn't matter. Nigej (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Here's a reliable source: https://wpbsa.com/player/thor-chuan-leong/  Alan  (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
The WPBSA Snooker Scores site also has Thor Chuan Leong (https://snookerscores.net/player/chuan-leong-thor) Steveflan (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
They don't. Actually they are calling him "Chuan Leong Thor" which is even sillier.  Alan  (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
His name is similar to Chinese names. My understanding is that players enter competitions on the snookerscores.net site and, therefore, put their details in (there are links for forthcoming events to allow you to enter). So I can only assume that under 'Surname' he has input his family name, Thor, and Chuan Leong as his forename. As I say, these are only assumptions - but it would seem to make sense. Steveflan (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Everyone (WST, Eurosport & BBC commentators, screens at venues etc.) seem to get Chinese names wrong when it's so easy to get them right. See this thread above timestamp 10:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC). It seems to me that it is disrespectful to the Chinese (and Malaysian) players to get their names wrong and we have a duty, as an encyclopedia, to do our best to get them right.  Alan  (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Thor Chuan Leong is not used anywhere by WST, which clearly uses Rory Thor in scoring and has done for a few months now: their player pages like https://wst.tv/players/thor-chuan-leong/ are rarely updated. Other sources we seem to be using to justify keeping it as “Thor Chuan Leong” are slow to update bedause they’re probably not paying attention to the tour, as we also have another reliable source in snooker.org showing the new name of Rory Thor, which i would say is more accurate than a wpbsa page which is targeted towards amateurs and not the pro tour. Kindly request we use the correct name that he is going by, in articles where this name is used, otherwise we are being misleading to readers. — CitroenLover (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
@AlH42: above CitroenLover (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
@CitroenLover: As I said earlier in this thread, I think we need to be consistent and use one or the other, but not both. If you want to go back through all the tournaments he has appeared in and change them to Rory Thor, feel free to do so and I will not object (others might). But just changing the one article would be inconsistent and wrong.  Alan  (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
The names that we should use should match the name that was used in a tournament. That means we should report things as they stood at the time: even if it is inconsistent, we have redirects for a reason to account for this potential issue. Therefore, for all tournaments where he was referred to as Rory Thor, that is the name we should use, and for any tournament where he used Thor Chuan Leong, that is what should be used. See Mink Nutcharut, who only used this name when she joined the professional tour, until that point she would be referred to across the wiki as “Nutcharut Wongharuthai” as that was her sporting name. — CitroenLover (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it's probably a mistake to change for just one event. However, there's no problem with changing from one style of name to another, if that's what sources are generally doing. See WP:DONOTFIXIT: "There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles.". So if we decide to use Rory Thor from some point, there's no need to change ANY of the earlier ones, indeed that might well be the wrong thing to do. Having said all that, it would perhaps be best to change between seasons, to minimise confusion to our readers. Nigej (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree with that approach, to keep consistency within a season seems reasonable.  Alan  (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Fwiw, i don’t get much opportunity to browse wikipedia on desktop these days, so the only reason i changed it on one page is just because i saw it on my mobile device. Its not convenient for me to go and change things like that en-masse on a mobile device. That is why i left the comment i did in the edit summary, in the hope an active editor on desktop would be able to make the change necessary. I will check to see when “Rory Thor” started being used and update all pages accordingly [may be difficult if the video footage from this seasons’ matches isn’t available though]. Thanks. CitroenLover (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@CitroenLover: I don't think the "video footage" is relevant. Our primary reliable source, for all of its failings, is the WST. We rely upon snooker.org for a lot of data, and Hermund Årdalen's site is very reliable, but it is after all a fansite, albeit a very good one.
If you want to change all of the instances of Thor Chuan Leong to Rory Thor for the current season then by all means go ahead, but I think the past seasons should be left alone.
On the subject of "confusion to our readers," if you hover over either of the Wikilinks in the previous sentence, you get the same picture of Thor, along with the text: "Thor Chuan Leong, better known on the main tour as Rory Thor, is a Malaysian professional snooker player." I don't see where the confusion arises.  Alan  (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Understand that the context of this talkpage post is to "this season", not previous seasons. I meant "watching earlier matches from this season" and seeing when the name change happened, as this is the first season when he's chosen to use this alternative name in the scoring system. It would be very wrong to put into draw templates "Rory Thor" where that name is not used, hence the need to validate when it appeared. Also, please understand that referring to any video footage of matches [often from random youtube videos that are uploaded] is the only way to verify what actually happened in previous tournaments, and is hard to come by because most broadcasters either don't provide a back catalogue of matches [ITV] or they only make it available for 30 days [BBC and Eurosport]. WST also aren't providing historical scoring on their pretty useless scoring site, they only provide data for the current tournament, so video clips are the only verification method for anything thats happened. Thanks. -- CitroenLover (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I still don't think that the "video footage" is relevant. If you can't cite it you can't use it. We can only use reliable sources. And we need to be consistent, I think, across the season. So choose one or the other.  Alan  (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I tend to agree with AlH42's resistance to "rewriting history". If we start saying that someone named Rory Thor did this-and-that in so-and-so season long before his name change, then people attempting to verify our claims in the sources are going to be confused because the sources will not contain any such name (it's okay if in the transitional period some do and some don't, as long as one does). Redirects exists for a reason and it is entirely sufficient that both names will resolve to the same article (and it would probably move to Rory Thor at some point, if he sticks with that name, and post-name-change sources use it. This is basically the same issue as Kanye West vs Ye (rapper) (most sources have not switched to using "Ye", despite him using it since 2018 or 2021 depending on how you define a publicly declared name-change), with elements of the Caitlyn Jenner vs Bruce Jenner situation, in which Jenner's former name is used with regard to old sporting results, which pre-date the name change. In running sentences in the article prose, we can say things like "Thor Chuan Leong (now known as Rory Thor)" or "Rory Thor (formerly known as Thor Chuan Leong)", as needed; be we should keep tournament tables and such concise. PS: In his own article, the "better known on the main tour as Rory Thor" statement should be qualified with a "since 20xx" date for the name change, to reduce further potential for confusion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
No one is saying anything about "rewriting history", so no idea where you're getting that from. The simple fact of the matter is that our articles should refer to Rory Thor when that was his name on the scoring sheets: literally no one is suggesting going back to some random tournament that he played in the 2018-2019 season and changing the draw entries to "Rory Thor" as all scoring records refer to him as Thor Chuan Leong before this season. -- CitroenLover (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
And, in any case, he has not changed his name. His name remains Thor Chuan Leong. His nickname is Rory Thor. It is how reliable sources have referred to him, and when they did, that is relevant.  Alan  (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the "nickname" argument is relevant. Tiger Woods is used on Wikipedia because sources use that name. Whether Tiger is a nickname or not, is not the issue here. Same applies to James Wattana. Anyway, these issues often resolve themselves over time, so perhaps best not to make a big issue of it. Nigej (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
@AlH42: Rory Thor is not a traditional nickname like you seem to think it is. For snooker players that come from Asia [eg Thailand, China, Malaysia etc], their names are often seen as too long and too confusing to say by "Westerners", so they use what we call a "stage name": ie an alternative name, which they call a "nickname". "Rory" is not a nickname like "The Rocket" or "The Wizard of Wishaw". WP:BOLD applies in this situation, and all official sources (since you're making a deal out of "sources" for whatever reason) like WST draw sheets for tournaments this season use Rory Thor as his name. I'd kindly request that you don't edit war over a redirect URL being used in place of a direct links, as my edits are not contravening any wikipedia policy and are arguably more accurate on the pages. Thank you. -- CitroenLover (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm well aware that what you are saying is correct as I worked in the far east for many years. Sorry for undoing your edit as I didn't realise you were doing all tournaments. I have reverted my own edit.  Alan  (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
@CitroenLover: ...and I just did a couple that you missed. At least we are consistent now.  Alan  (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

NOWRAP on sports scores

Lee Vilenski has posted a topic here. Please add your comments so that a consensus can be achieved. So far, only SMcCandlish, Michael Bednarek, and myself have bothered to comment.  Alan  (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

This discussion, still with very few participating, seems to have come down to the wording of MOS:SCORES.
It is currently worded: "To avoid potential line breaks, {{non breaking en dash}}, or {{nbnd}} for short, can be used between scores, or {{nowrap}} around the entire score construction." (the bolding of "can" is mine.)
Both myself and Lee Vilenski would like it to be changed to: "To avoid potential line breaks, {{non breaking en dash}}, or {{nbnd}} for short, should be used between scores, or {{nowrap}} around the entire score construction."
SMcCandlish would seem to be ambivalent.
EEng has suggested just saying: "Use {{nbnd}} to prevent linebreak."
With so few users in the discussion, we are unlikely to achieve consensus. Please add your opinions to this thread.
 Alan  (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be an opposition to doing this, just disagreement about how emphatic to make the wording about it in the guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Which is, pretty much, what I said above. But we need more input to this thread to get a proper consensus, and you seem to be "on the fence."  Alan  (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I "advertised" the discussion also to WT:SPORT since this really has nothing to do with snooker in particular. And I'm not on the fence about MoS addressing this (it already has been for several days now), just using overly prescriptive wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Maybe somebody could compile the options into a straw poll, and that would encourage further participation. I have looked at the discussion, but the sentences are all very similar with minor variations. Any of them would work for me, but perhaps there are some good reasons for choosing one over the other? Betty Logan (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: There are good reasons, it's about emphasis. If you use the words "must use" many editors would object to it being too constrictive. If you say "can use" then you're not making a rule at all, just making a suggestion. I think that saying "should use" is a good compromise. Please decide which you think is preferable and add your opinion to the discussion.  Alan  (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I decided to be WP:BOLD and changed MOS:SCORES about 24 hours ago, and nobody seems to have objected so far. I have also added {{nbnd}} to the scores in the 2023 UK Championship article.  Alan  (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

2024 Championship League (invitational)

I've just created the article for the 2024 Championship League (invitational) tournament, which starts early in the new year, the group one players having been decided. It needs work.  Alan  (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to let all in here know (Nigej already knows) - the 2024 Championship League (invitational) article was vandalised earlier today by banned user User:DooksFoley147. I reverted his edits and a couple of others he had done. He has also left a message on your talk page @Betty Logan:. Best not to respond. He's using IP addresses 178.167.148.67 and 178.167.188.7 .  Alan  (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

"Moving Day"

Hi all — an editor keeps inserting references to "moving day" in tournament descriptions, along the lines of this, from the 2023 Scottish Open article:

This day (Thursday) of the tournament is known as "moving day" since all of the remaining last 32 matches and all of the last 16 matches are played, meaning that some players have to play twice. Only the eight quarter-finalists remain at the end of "moving day".

I've been following snooker for a long time and have never heard of "moving day" as part of the sport's terminology. It seems, at best, trivia — and in my view should not be repeated across multiple articles in an effort to give it legitimacy. It's not uncommon for a player to play more than one match in a day at a 128-player, week-long event. Hence, I deleted it, but it was quickly restored.

Opinions sought — is "moving day" a legitimate piece of snooker terminology? And, if so, is there any reason to keep repeating the above info in tournament articles—rather than, say, putting in it in the cue sports glossary if people feel it's a legitimate coinage? HurricaneHiggins (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Simple answer from me is no. I have never heard it used in snooker before the 2023 Scottish Open. Even then, if I recall correctly, I think one player (or possibly commentator) mentioned in a Eurosport interview that they called it 'moving day' and that was it. It is more prevalent (and relevant) in golf, where the 3rd round (of a 4 round tournament) is termed as 'moving day' as there are fewer players left in due to the field being cut after the second day and is a chance to put yourself in contention of the final round with a good score and 'move up' the leaderboard. It may have been used due to the fact that you could play and win 2 matches on one day and potentially 'move up' the rankings for the World Grand Prix, but don't see any other reason why snooker would have a 'moving day'. Steveflan (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Steveflan. That dovetails with my impression too. It sounds like an awkward effort to import golf terminology into snooker. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
@HurricaneHiggins: I have never played or watched golf, and have absolutely no interest in golf, so I have definitely not made any sort of "awkward effort" to import anything. This is a valid term, used by commentators and properly referenced. However, if you think it trivial, then remove it in an edit saying so at the time, and not a hidden removal as part of another larger edit as you did earlier today.  Alan  (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
There was no "hidden removal" — and the inference that I was trying to get away with sneakily deleting something is at odds with the assumption of good faith that we all should be adopting here. I copy edited the entire article, as part of which I deleted material I considered to be fluff, including trimming excessively long quotes and removing references to "moving day" that made no sense to me. It's your insistence on reinserting these references — not only here, but in other articles as well — that is causing an issue, because most of us have never heard of "moving day" in the context of snooker. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Fine - accepted in good faith. So go ahead and delete it again if you like. Although I think it's a proper term, used over a number of years by respected commentators, and has a valid reference.  Alan  (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Agree with the above. Never heard of it in a snooker sense. To me its the 3rd round of a 4 round golf tournament. Nigej (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
It's interesting to me that you guys have not heard of this term. It has been used by the Eurosport commentators (including Jimmy White) and in articles on the Eurosport website ever since the current format for the Home Nations tournaments was implemented. It is I who have added this comment to a couple of the Home Nations tournaments this season, properly referenced. However, if you feel, as a group, that my additions are "trivial", then by all means remove them.  Alan  (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Probably because I've got the volume turned down. Can't get on with "counter-clearance" either: 2023 Masters (snooker)#Quarter-finals "Trump attempted a counter-clearance ...". I'm sure we had a discussion about that years ago but I still don't know what it means. Nigej (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Language changes over time, including within a narrow field. The fact that a couple of sports commentators are trying to import a golf term into snooker jargon is sort of "interesting" from a language-nerd perspective, but until we have more evidence of widespread usage among the snooker player and spectator base, we can't expect readers to understand this term. And trying to "educate" them on its use when it is not part of the regular jargon yet is not an appropriate role for Wikipedia (we don't advocate anything, and do not try to predict the future of English usage, even within a narrow jargon sphere). If there's sufficient usage that can be pinned down in reliable sources we can cite, then it might be reasonable to add a line-item for it in Glossary of cue sport terms, but even that seems a bit iffy. Same with "counter-clearance". Just because a commentator said it a few times doesn't make it non-trivial as a neologistic usage. And it's too easy to claim that a commentator used something in some televised match that is not examinable by any and all at a public URL, or some other permanent source. People could just make up all kinds of claims of "new terminology", cited to sources that are essentially impossible to verify.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand why you and others keep going on about golf. I have never played or watched golf, and have absolutely no interest in golf. This is a proper term, used over a number of years by respected snooker commentators, and has valid references from a reliable source. But if it annoys you so much then go ahead and delete it if you like.  Alan  (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I think one issue with this particular term is that it's not obvious what's "moving". Made sense in the golf context, players moving up and down the leaderboard. The only thing that seems to be moving in the snooker "moving day" are the odds. Generally Wikipedia follows, rather than leads, in these situations. We wait for them term to be widely used and widely understood and then we use it. And of course there's always that balance between not using jargon and not treating our readers as complete idiots. Nigej (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Go ahead and delete it. I put it in two articles. I have now lost interest in this subject. There are more important issues.  Alan  (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
The only real term I've found to be suitable for this is the "Judgement Day" that is plastered all over the last day(s) of qualification for the world championships. It's not really a case of "do people use this term", more that it helps to have this reference. Even the one I mentioned I'm not a massive fan of, but at least when you look at the citations they are mostly titled "Judgement Day Live" or equivalent. There's an argument if it is a widespread use it could go in the cue sports glossary, but from my experience this is an American term that has been adopted. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
“Moving day” is a term popularised on eurosport events, namely the home nations, it was something used by Andy Goldstein pretty regularly and is used to describe the fact that at the start of the day there are 32 players but by the end there are only 8, because the entirety of two rounds are played in one single day. I think it is notable and should be included in our articles, because its still part of the home nations scheduling. I also recall it being used for the German Masters [last 16 and quarter finals both played on Friday for the semi finals on Saturday]. — CitroenLover (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
You're a bit late. The offending sentences and references have already been deleted and this thread is about dead.  Alan  (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I made the changes after you said above "Go ahead and delete it." If you, @CitroenLover, or other editors want to continue making the case for including references to "moving day," I for one am more than happy to listen ... but, as things stand, its usage seems nonexistent in snooker outside of a handful of Eurosport commentators. FWIW, commentators sometimes try to popularise a term by acting as if it has widespread usage — as when Dennis Taylor says for the four millionth time "That's what we call a DDK, the dreaded double kiss." However, I have never heard anyone other than Dennis Taylor ever refer to a "DDK," and we would not include an entry for "DDK" in the cue sports glossary just because Dennis Taylor mentions it in commentary. A term should have widespread acceptance (i.e., beyond niche Eurosport usage) before we use it in an encyclopedia. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Fwiw, DDK has sometimes been used on the other broadcasters, but sparingly if its relevant to the situation. So far i’ve heard phil yates, dave hendon and neal foulds all use the term, but its just an abbreviation for a longer phrase, and abbreviations are relatively common in most sports. CitroenLover (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
@HurricaneHiggins: I just removed the last remaining reference to moving day (one you missed) from the 2023 Northern Ireland Open article. Can we please put this discussion to bed now?  Alan  (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, @AlH42. Happy to put this to bed! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Ronnie wins UK Championship: In the news

I nominated the 2023 UK Championship article for Wikipedia:In the news. Still new to editing on Wiki so hopefully I'm doing this correctly! AmethystZhou (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It was a nice thought, but as you can see from the reponses there, they're not interested in snooker event coverage like this other than the World Championship win.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
@AmethystZhou: Well that was a waste of time and effort, good try though. Clearly very few people (other than us in here) even consider snooker to be a sport. That is why Ronnie O'Sullivan will never win SPOTY, and the likes of Ray Reardon will never get a knighthood, even though such honours are handed out like confetti to all other sports, and to many actors and musicians. I would recommend the Amazon documentary about O'Sullivan, which shows what he goes through in order to entertain us. Rant over.  Alan  (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I knew that they only allow the World Championship once a year, but I thought Ronnie winning it for the billionth time and breaking records should be notable? Guess not.. :( AmethystZhou (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't see it to begin with to add any comments. As an aside, would it be worth a 'Did You Know' nomination with O'Sullivan now being both the youngest and oldest player to win the UK Championship? Personally, I would say that was noteworthy. Steveflan (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Not worth bothering. You and I (and others in here) will see it as noteworthy, but nobody else will. See "rant" above.  Alan  (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
DYK would have been suitable (if it went 5x). It's not really a ITN thing, I've fought for years for us to retain the one item we have a year (and we often get blocks on that). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I've put a nomination in anyway (you never know 😉). Not sure if I've done it right though (Template:Did you know nominations/2023 UK Championship) Steveflan (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Well that was spectacularly unsuccessful. Not really surprising though, and ROS didn't even get a nomination for SPOTY this year.  Alan  (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I think we've got to accept that it's not as big a sport as some, so getting stuff through WP:ITN is always going to be a struggle. Hits for the UK Championship were good for snooker: [13] daily peak at 90,000 for Ronnie and 45,000 for the 2023 UK article. Interesting that only 15,000 of Ronnie's hits that day were on desktops, mostly mobiles nowadays. FWIW Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker/Popular pages has our top 200 articles. This page is updated monthly, currently showing October numbers. Nigej (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Sounds like there's some technicalities about the criteria for DYN that the article didn't fit. But if the article becomes a Good Article then it will be eligible to be nominated for DYN within seven days of that. AmethystZhou (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
It certainly was! I have put an additional comment at the end of the nomination and have asked for it to be withdrawn for now - but still believe it is more than notable enough to be included, so am waiting for when the article is promoted to Good Article status (which I believe it will be sooner rather than later). Personally I found the whole DYK process to be frustrating and very bureaucratic (I still don't follow that 5x thing!). I could go on, but feel I will get very frustrated and say something I later regret so I will stop here. Steveflan (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
For it to become a GA, someone, preferably a major contributor, needs to nominate it first. The GA process can also be a bit bureaucratic, and can take a while, but most of the reviewers are really helpful. I'd be happy to help a nominator (or nominators) either with the process, or to respond to reviewer comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I must be missing something here. Why would it need to be a "GA" before getting a mention in "DYK"? Look at today's nonsense in "DYK":
  • 1 not a "GA"
  • 2 not a "GA"
  • 3 not a "GA" – and so on ...
In fact none of the links in today's DYK have GA status.  Alan  (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
See WP:DYKRULES. "At the time of nomination, an article must be considered new, which means it was created, expanded fivefold, or promoted to good article status in the seven days preceding a nomination." So if it's promoted to GA it's can still pass as "new" even if it fails the "created" and "expanded fivefold" parts of the rule. Got to say that I'm in the Steveflan camp, I gave up on it years ago. Wikipedia:In the news/Recent deaths is the only part of the main page that I do get involved in. Nigej (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
An absolutely ridiculous set of rules (IMO).  Alan  (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
At any rate, we should promote the article for GA, then it will be eligible for the DYN. I think it looks pretty good already, thanks to the contribution from many editors. AmethystZhou (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
The DYK ruleset is for recently changed info, so ones that are newly created, expanded fivefold, or reach GA status. I don't mind nominating it for GA, but my contribution is reasonably low. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Looks like the nomination is very easy so I went ahead and nominated the article. I'd really appreciate your help with responding to comments! AmethystZhou (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Well done. I've put in my "tuppence-worth" here. I'm not sure if my review is valid, since I was a major contributor to the article. We will see what transpires. The seeding dispute needs to be resolved ASAP though.  Alan  (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
...and it's been over a week and nobody else has reviewed it.  Alan  (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Well most of the articles we have for GA nominations have been pending for months... Also I think you should be a co-nominator rather than a reviewer! :P AmethystZhou (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
You're probably right. Do you think I should delete the review?  Alan  (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't know, this is the first time I'm nominating an article. @Lee Vilenski @BennyOnTheLoose what do you think? AmethystZhou (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh yeah, you totally shouldn't open the review of an article you aren't doing the review for - it'll stay like that forever. GA reviews are done by a single person and not done by someone who worked on the article. Would you like me to revert the review page? As a new nominator you're right at the top of the to-do pile. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
That would be great, thank you! Can I also add @AlH42 as a co-nominator? AmethystZhou (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
@AmethystZhou: Not really interested in being a co-nominator. And the seeding numbers dispute still needs to be resolved.
@Lee Vilenski: Please go ahead and delete my review.
 Alan  (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Good point, I added a comment on that. Also it looks like the previous year pages have the same way of showing the seedings (2022, 2021, 2020, etc.), albeit without clarification next to the brackets. AmethystZhou (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about that Lee - I didn't know. Yes please revert it.  Alan  (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Tour calendar table change

The format of the calendar table for 2023-24 snooker season appears to have been changed arbitrarily. As much as i espouse WP:BOLD, this makes no sense and makes the data harder to read. I also don’t understand the context for writing World Snooker Championship on a page which is clearly about snooker [ie its a season page], and where its often just referenced as “World Championship” in most calendar sources. Im not convinced that this wider change to the table is very useful or improves the article, but if we are changing it here, then this would have to be changed on a lot of season pages for consistency. CitroenLover (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The table is too wide, and needed small font size (85%, which is the smallest allowed per MOS:FONTSIZE) to prevent wrapping. I combined some columns to reduce the width of the table and now the font size is 90%. I don't think references need their own column, for example. What exactly do you think make the edited tables harder to read? I'm not 100% satisfied with the dates, since they are not aligned and look messy. I could revert the dates to two separate column, though I wanted to add the years so it's a bit clearer that they are in chronological order. AmethystZhou (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
@AmethystZhou I think this format is better than the initial one that prompted me to write this talk page topic. That being said, the cross symbols next to tournament names are meaningless and make it difficult -- for me anyway -- to read them clearly. I think the row highlighting is more than sufficient for this considering there is a legend below the table describing what an orange-filled row means. -- CitroenLover (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
However see WP:COLOR: "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method ..." so strictly-speaking a coloured background is not sufficient. Nigej (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, it's also an WP:ACCESS thing - as if the only means of representation that something is special is purely visual, then it's not going to be picked up by screen readers. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Like Nigej said, I added the daggers because of MOS:COLOR. AmethystZhou (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Probably the flag icon under "city" should go. See MOS:FLAG. Generally sports articles have way too many flags. They are allowed to indicate the "sporting nationality" of sportspeople but using a flag for a political entity is not generally a good idea. And perhaps the table still has too much information in it. Do we need the venue? Nigej (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure you all know my opinion about flags. I think all the flags should go. The scores wrap on my screen so maybe you should use {{nbnd}}. I have no idea how to resolve the dates problem, and they all, pretty much, wrap and look horrible on my screen. Other than that I think it's an improvement.  Alan  (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Definitely agree about the nbnd. Breaking the score is pretty much the last place we want it. Nigej (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I added {{nbnd}} to the scores and removed the flags from the city column. I have an alternative version in my sandbox without the venue column, and have a combined date column with the year. What do you all think? AmethystZhou (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I prefer the version in your sandbox.  Alan  (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I also prefer the additional columns. Quick reminder that we shouldn't be linking headers. See this change for example. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean by "linking headers"? AmethystZhou (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
See the link I provided where I removed this. We shouldn't have wikilinks within headers (for lots of reasons). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I think you linked to the wrong edit, but I see now, thanks! AmethystZhou (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you to everyone that has contributed to the discussion! I have made a couple of new mock-ups for the tour calendar table in my sandbox. Removing the venue column (or moving the information to footnotes) allow the table to be much narrower, and the font size to return to 100%. What do you all think? AmethystZhou (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

- oh yes, I did. Good spot. Fixed. We don't link them because A. (The MOS says not too), and B. Headers are navigatable. Either use {{Main}}, or write some prose to enclude the link. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS "For technical reasons, section headings should: ... Not contain links" Nigej (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
re the MOS on accessibility: remember that these are guidelines, not rules that must be followed exactly as written without question. There are better ways of meeting accessibility requirements without the use of symbols that rather interrupt the flow of text and stand out too obviously.
Personally, a column which just uses tooltips for the abbreviations of WR and NR [world ranking and non-ranking] would be a better way of explaining that it is a non-ranking event, than a cross symbol that looks extremely out of place and doesn't objectively mean anything unless you look at a legend table, whereas just putting an abbreviation is much more immediately obvious about the ranking status oof the event. The alternative is that we do not display the table in calendar order and separately list ranking and non-ranking events so that no additional columns are required.
Two additional points:
1. Do editors intend to replicate this format on every single snooker season article? If not, then we should revert to the previous format until such a time that consistency would be achieved on the pages.
2. If text wrapping is a problem, consider widening the table size so it fills more space. This is a never-ending battle anyway because setting specific widths assumes that everyone browses the Wikipedia on a desktop device, when arguably the trend is towards a lot of people finding information on-the-go on mobile devices.
Thanks. -- CitroenLover (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Agree about the "guideline" aspect but we need to be aware of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I like the WR/NR idea, although personally I'd go for R/NR as being clearer. Nigej (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@CitroenLover: Your suggesstion of having separate tables for ranking and non-ranking tournaments has some merit, and would certainly solve the accessibility issue. On your additional point 1: I disagree. If a modification makes an improvement that is agreed by consensus, and an editor is prepared to do the work to similarly improve previous articles (as I did recently by removing the brackets from all the Shoot-Out tournaments), then we should applaud AmethystZhou's efforts, not revert them. On your additional point 2: For me, wrapping is only a problem for the scores (already fixed), and the dates (apparently in progress).  Alan  (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I've been asking for the Tour calendar to be split into ranking and non-ranking for years. It is - indeed - the best solution. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@AlH42 as much as the contribution from AmethystZhou is appreciated and welcomed, consistency is more important: if no editor intends to format all season articles in the exact same way, then it needs to be reverted, if anything to preserve the consistency of all previous articles. It would look incredibly silly if one page uses a wildly different format to every other page, as that would introduce edit wars from users trying to put the page back to the old format.
@Nigej R/NR works too, only benefit to WR is that it means the column width will be identical [to a width of two characters], rather than flexing between one and two chars. —CitroenLover (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I can edit the previous pages, it's not too difficult, as long as we settle on a format. I can also automate the process to make it a bit easier for myself :P AmethystZhou (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
These unilateral alterations you keep making to table formats need to stop. There are often good reasons for the way things are are. You altered the structure of {{Infobox snooker player}} because you didn't like how it was showing up in Google search results, and added an extra column to UK Championship (which unnecessarily widened the table IMO). Bold edits are one thing, but altering established formats that maintain consistency across snooker articles which are often the result of previous discussions can be disruptive. If you have suggestion for altering the format of an infobox or established table format, then please initiate a discussion and obtain a consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Maybe people agreed on doing it this way years ago, but many aspects can still be improved. I think the infobox causing confusing Google search results is a valid reason to change it. The vast majority of people search from Google, not Wikipedia. I also don't see how a minor change where I added a single word to the parameter: from "ranking" to "ranking wins" is disruptive.
As for the tables, I was trying to change them from the current season tournament pages to a consistent format, but you reverted many of them. I'd love to see discussions on ways to improve these tables, they are the most important part of these pages. As you can see here, we clearly have various opinions on how to format them. The tables being too wide is a common complaint, but people have different opinions on what exactly to include, and in what order (or format). I'd be happy to apply the agreed upon format to all the tournament and season pages, as there are not that many of them. AmethystZhou (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
The issue isn't whether something can be improved—people may agree or disagree on that point—the issue is your approach. As you say yourself, people have different opinions on what to include in tables and in which order, so why not start a discussion here and solicit those opinion? Betty Logan (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
@CitroenLover: Well it's all moot now since an IP user (2A06:C701:9CFE:3100:F07B:8ADB:44F2:2C8) has, early this morning, reverted pretty much all of AmethystZhou's work!  Alan  (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
...which could possibly be classed as vandalism. Should it be reverted?  Alan  (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Great... I'm not going to revert that back but it's pretty frustrating to see. AmethystZhou (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm very tempted to revert it, but I don't want to start an edit-war.  Alan  (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I have just reverted those edits - mainly because they re-introduced links in section titles, which is not allowed.  Alan  (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I very much disagree that consistency is more important than improvements. We should totally be looking to make the best course for any article. If that is also the best for other articles, that's great. The argument that something has been done before on other articles is one that gets in the way of actually making it better in the present. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski I agree its important to look for new ways to change how things are done. However, like @Betty Logan points out, that should be done through a discussion first, so that people can make a consensus on the format before the edits are actually made. By having a discussion first, compromises are more likely to be reached and the format can be tested in a sandbox: randomly changing the table format without a prior discussion isn't particularly useful and leads more people to argue for the change to be reverted because it wasn't discussed. Thats why I raised this talkpage discussion, because realistically, this discussion should have happened before the edit was made. -- CitroenLover (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
That simply isn't how the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle works. No, a wider discussion doesn't need to happen before a change is made. If someone objects, that's when a discussion happens. Continually adding the changes is when the issues occur. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Totally agree Lee. If the improvement is agreed, and someone (probably AmethystZhou) is willing to do the work and modify all the previous seasons to suit, then we have consistency as well.  Alan  (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
The problem with that guideline is that it introduces the right for people to just wilfully vandalise articles in the name of "making a change". I agree that if the change is extremely minor, it doesn't warrant a discussion on a talkpage. However, I would argue that if we are going to substantially (and that bit is key for the rest of this comment) change the formatting of a section of an article, and that section is widely used across multiple snooker articles, the discussion should be had first, so that when the change is made, it is not littered in edit wars or constant minor edits when trying to correct things to suit different users. Wikipedia articles are not sandboxes, yet you are suggesting that BRD encourages people to just make random changes that they want to make? Notably, that guideline you're linking says it is "an optional strategy", not something that should be used for every single change people want to make, so I would argue that discussion is more important first in snooker pages, so as to avoid confusing the litany of readers who read these pages daily. -- CitroenLover (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Making a change isn't vandalism. You've conflicted good faith changes with willful vandalism. What you are saying is that if something is not a minor edit, it should be discussed first. That isn't something that you can expect other people to follow. I would argue that discussion is more important first in snooker pages, so as to avoid confusing the litany of readers who read these pages daily. That's some drivel, as if the rest of the articles on the site are somehow not viewed daily.
The answers are simple - no, we don't require people to have a discussion before making changes, and no, we don't require other similar articles to be consistent. From everything you've stated in this thread, any time someone brings up a link you disagree with, you state it's "just a guideline", whether that be ACCESS or BRD.
That being said - what is the actual issue here now? It sounds like there is an agreement that these changes are suitable, and people seem happy enough to make those changes to a wider range of articles. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I totally agree. I think the new format is a big improvement. The only issue remaining for me is the wrapping in the dates columns. This is easily fixed by inserting a non-breaking space in each date, so that you enter, for instance, 24{{nbsp}}Dec instead of 24 Dec. I don't have a problem with wrapping in the other columns. If AmethystZhou is willing to make the same change to all previous seasons, then the consistency problem goes away as well.  Alan  (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
...and on the subject of consistency, there is none at the moment. I've just looked back through a few seasons and they are totally inconsistent. Some have one date format and others have a different one. Some tables are sortable while others are not. For the ones that are sortable, some sort on first name, some on second, and others sort on flag nations so that Neil Robertson comes top for Australia! They really don't need to be sortable atall.  Alan  (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@AmethystZhou: I've been looking at the dates columns issue and it makes hardly any difference width‍–‍wise whether you have one or two columns as you can see here:
Start Finish
28 Jun 29 Jul
19 Dec 2 Mar
Dates
28 Jun ‍–‍ 29 Jul
19 Dec ‍–‍ 2 Mar
In fact the single column version is very slighty narrower so that would seem to be preferable.
Regarding the date format, as I said above, there are various formats used in these tables going back through the seasons. So I think we need to choose a format and stick to it throughout. My preference would be to use "dd/mm" with {{nbsp}}to{{nbsp}} between the dates (to avoid wrapping), which would be a bit narrower again and looks like this:
Dates
28/06 to 29/07
19/12 to 02/03
There are other issues you need to be aware of before rolling out any changes to the previous seasons:
  1. Many of these tables are sortable. I don't think they should be. I think they should just be ordered by tournament finish date.
  2. Having the references in the "Score" column might create a problem in some seasons where there are three or more references for an event. Look at 84–85 as an example.
  3. Most seasons are using {{flagicon}} which, in some cases, gives the wrong flag. South AfricaPerrie Mans is an example of this (note that having "Enable page previews" switched ON in "Preferences" is the default which most users will have. If a user is not logged in he/she will not be able to switch it off). Changing them all to {{flagathlete}} solves this and gives  Perrie Mans (RSA).
  4. It might be worth considering combining the "Venue" and "City" columns into a single "Venue" column, since many of the locations are not cities (e.g. Telford is a town).
 Alan  (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
We shouldn't be merging the score and references tabs for sure. If we are worried about the size of the reference header, we can use Ref.. This is because the reference should cover all of the items in the table, not simply the score. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
That makes sense, except that, for instance, "[23][24][25][26]" is pretty much as wide as "References".  Alan  (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but you could also just bundle those citations, if you were worried about the size. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Nice one - I did not know you could do that. I learn something new every day, even at 77!  Alan  (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
That might not work, since Help:Citation merging says: "If any of the sources in the bundle is re-used elsewhere in the text, the citation cannot be implemented by using named references..." Looking at 84–85 as an example, pretty much all of the references are named and re-used.  Alan  (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
{{refn}} is the template I use. It does allow such a thing. See:
[3]
[2] Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
OK - clever. But that's going to take a lot of work in tables like the 84–85 one.  Alan  (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Didn't take long at all: Special:Diff/1192099986. Doing it for all articles might take a bit of time - but there is no rush. Sounds like a decent task to go through them all. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Impressive!  Alan  (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
The only reservation I have about the single column dates is if you look across different rows they are not aligned to each other (see this for example). Maybe they'll look better if I take out the years and have them center-aligned. I'm definitely not a fan of the "28/06 to 29/07" format, though. In fact, I'm a strong proponent of ISO 8601, but I'll settle with "28 Jun" since that's what most people agree on for snooker articles. And I agree with the four points you listed, thank you for bringing these up! AmethystZhou (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
You don't need the years at all. The infobox at the top of this season says clearly: "Duration 26 June 2023 – 26 May 2024". Putting years in the dates column(s) is just unnecessary repetition. If you use "dd/mm" then alignment is not a problem. If you were going to stick to ISO8601, then you would have to use "mm/dd" or "mmm dd", and I don't like either of those. Remember that we should be trying to reduce the number of columns.  Alan  (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
...and you only need to follow ISO8601 if you are going to use the dates for sorting, which we are not doing. On reducing the number of columns, the "Refs" column will have to go back in. See the conversation between Lee Vilenski and myself above. Combining the "Venue" and "City" columns into a single "Venue" column would help though.  Alan  (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
@AmethystZhou: Looking at last night's mock-ups in your sandbox: Styles 2 and 3 with the venues either missing or in footnotes will not be acceptable to some in here, including myself. Style 1 is fine except for the dates which are wrapping on my screen and look awful. I still think it would be better to use "dd/mm" with {{nbsp}}to{{nbsp}} between the dates. You could add a note about the date format, as many previous seasons have done. Look at 84–85 as an example. If you insist upon using "d mmm" then you will need to use {{nbsp}}{{nbnd}}{{nbsp}} between the dates and put the font size back to 85%.  Alan  (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I just added nowrap to the dates. If it's up to me I'd use 2023-12-28 (or 12-28), but looks like all of the dates in infobox, prose, table, and everywhere else in snooker articles are the 28 December 2023 format (I think it's a British English thing?), so I'll stick to that. AmethystZhou (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
That looks much better, but the alignment is a bit strange looking. Not all articles use the same date format. Again, look at 84–85. It uses "mm-dd" and has a note stating what format it uses. I don't think it matters much what format you use, as long as it looks OK, conveys the information logically, and is consistent throughout.  Alan  (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I added a separate table for "Style 1" with the ISO dates, but I think the first table is better. The ISO format without the year is admittedly a bit confusing to look at, while you can glance at the other one and immediately see the months. AmethystZhou (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I tend to agree. However, we should be following MOS:DATEFORMAT. So here's a thought: Since most of the lines in the table wrap anyway (because of the length of the text in the "Venue" column), why not force a break in the "Dates" column using for example 26 Jun –‍<br/>21 Jul .  Alan  (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Good point about MOS:DATE. I changed the dates to "26{{nbsp}}Jun – 21{{nbsp}}Jul" so it doesn't wrap on wide monitors, but will wrap after the dash for narrower screens (and mobile). I also added a 100% font size example, which IMO is the best one so far. AmethystZhou (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The dates look terrible on my screen (I'm looking at ""Style 1" in your sandbox). It's probably because you've got them centre aligned. I would suggest using the default left alignment for the dates, since you're never going to be able to properly line up the dashes anyway. Maybe that's why many seasons use two columns for the dates.  Alan  (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
...and there's very little difference width-wise between using one or two columns. See the little sample tables in my post above (timestamped 11:35, 27 December).  Alan  (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
I made the dates in the Style 1 tables left-align now. AmethystZhou (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
That's an improvement. The two column approach should be considered though.  Alan  (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
...and 90% might be better.  Alan  (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
@AmethystZhou: Just to let you know that @Andygray110 has changed the date format in a number of past seasons. See 92–93 as an example. These look quite good, using the two column approach, left aligned. This means that the sorting doesn't work properly of course, but if we are going to remove the sortable option, then this is not a problem.  Alan  (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
In case helpful - that season (92-93) is as far as I got. Any season calendar before that currently has the ##-## format for dates. Andygray110 (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, we don't need sorting on these tables at all. I changed the tables in my sandbox to the two column dates, and I think they are pretty close to "finalized". I'll start making the edits to all the pages, if there's no more suggestions on changes. AmethystZhou (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Looks better, but I still think 90% would be preferable.  Alan  (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ BBC and World Snooker extend broadcast agreement to 2024
  2. ^ a b https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2017/world-snooker-broadcast-agreement
  3. ^ Ref One[1], named ref,[2]

Venue/location columns in tournament articles

AmethystZhou has unilaterally started adding a second column to tournament articles for locations (which was previously combined with venues in a single column. There are two issues going on here: alterations to established formats without a consensus, and the table formats themselves. I would prefer this discussion to solely focus on the table format. You can see some examples of the alterations here:

There are things I like about the changes, so I will start with those:

  • It establishes some consistency across the tournament articles.
  • It includes three pieces of information which I think should be there: Venue, city and country (although I think the latter is only necessary if played in more than one country).

What I don't like:

  • The second column increases the width of the table, and the information gain is minimal. Much of this information can easily be combined in a single column e.g. "Wembley Conference Centre, London". Do we really need two columns to tell us where the event was held? It's not as though events are awarded to cities or countries. In the case of the Masters, the two clumns took up nearly half the table.
  • I also strongly disagree with how the season column was moved to the end. It introduces rowspans into the middle of the table which breaks up the continuity of the row and creates a box effect. If a table can be formatted so that rowspans come either at the start or at the end, that is better IMO. Not only does it look better from an aesthetic POV, but it makes the rows easier to follow on small displays.

If editors prefer the changes AmethystZhou has made then that is fine, but table formats should be decided by the snooker project as whole. Betty Logan (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I take the last point about the rowspan. Having to jump across the sparse venue/city columns to find the corresponding season is not the best. Tend to agree about the first point too. Do we need an extra column for this? I'm wondering whether a separate table for the venues might be in order. See eg Australian Open (golf)#Winners. Give minimal detail in the results table eg Alexandra Palace and give the other details (eg city) in a separate table, "Venues" in this example. Nigej (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't much like the idea of a separate table for venues. But having a single column would, I think, be preferable. How about: either (1) listing the venues, each with a tooltip for the town/city; or (2) listing the towns/cities, each with a tooltip for the venue. Probably better to use footnotes ({{efn}}) instead of tooltips, since they can be named and re-used.  Alan  (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
...and the Championship League table used to look like this using footnotes.  Alan  (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I like the cities with footnotes. The venues often have long names and if they are not used for more than one season (one row) then the table will get very wide. AmethystZhou (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
@AmethystZhou: Well—that being the case—if you have no objection, I'll put them back in. After all, it was you who took them out.  Alan  (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
No problem! Although I'll probably make some small tweaks later if we can reach a consensus on a consistent format for these tables. AmethystZhou (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Done that - but remember that the Championship League is completely different to all other tournaments.  Alan  (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I thought having the seasons at the end is how these tables always are? (see this page back in 2021 for example) An alternative could be to have season in the first column, and remove the "year" column. Instead, link the score to the year page. I made a couple of mock ups in my sandbox: (1) with season and year columns and (2) season column only with years linked to the scores. I also moved the scores between the winners and runner-ups. AmethystZhou (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
It is important to retain both the year and the season in the table, since they are both relevant i.e. you win the 2023 British Open for example, but it's not clear from the year alone which season that is. I am also not a fan of sticking important information in the footnotes. I am not making a case for removing information from the table, I just don't think the formatting you chose was optimal. This table is perfectly functional; it includes the venue and location in a single column and by keeping the season before the venue column does not break the continuity of the row. The season column could go anywhere in the table, provided it is before the row-spanning columns—it probably makes more sense to position it next to the year in all fairness if we aim to be logical. The columns should be ordered in such a way that it minimises the breaks in continuity of the row (and by the same token we shouldn't be asking them to click on footnotes). It is important to not create a solution that is a looking for a problem. We just need to be consistent about which information we include, and the ordering of the columns. Betty Logan (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
When I made the changes to many of the tournament pages some of them did have the venues listed (for example) so I thought maybe the venues are useful information that should be added to all of these tables. But I agree with the points on them making the table too wide, also agreed on not listing "countries" for tournaments that are obviously not moving across countries like the UK Championship. See my reply to Nigej with some mock ups, what do you think about those approaches? AmethystZhou (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
The one with the year column is closest to where we need to be, but I disagree with relegating the venues to footnotes. We are inconveniencing the reader making them click on footnotes. The venue and city should both be in the table, but just in a single column. The country is unnecessary unless the event is played in multiple countries:
Season Year Winner Score Runner-up Venue
2016/17 2016  Liang Wenbo (CHN) 9–6  Judd Trump (ENG) EventCity, Manchester
2017/18 2017  Ronnie O'Sullivan (ENG) 9–2  Kyren Wilson (ENG) Barnsley Metrodome, Barnsley
2018/19 2018  Stuart Bingham (ENG) 9–7  Mark Davis (ENG) K2 Leisure Centre, Crawley
2019/20 2019  Mark Selby (ENG) 9–1  David Gilbert (ENG)
2020/21 2020  Judd Trump (ENG) 9–8  Neil Robertson (AUS) Marshall Arena, Milton Keynes
2021/22 2021  Neil Robertson (AUS) 9–8  John Higgins (SCO)
2022/23 2022  Mark Selby (ENG) 9–6  Luca Brecel (BEL) Brentwood Centre, Brentwood
2023/24 2023  Judd Trump (ENG) 9–7  Zhang Anda (CHN)
Betty Logan (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: I disagree with you about the footnotes. The "reader" doesn't need to click anything, just hover - or look at the notes list. I think it's an elegant solution, and works very well in the Championship League. BTW - I just removed the references from your sample table above, since they looked like they were a response to my post about Mark Allen below.  Alan  (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Those are actually placeholder references I added to the original table in my sandbox to show where they would go. I didn't bother with filling in the proper details so they showed up as reference errors.. :P AmethystZhou (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Hovering over the footnotes doesn't bring them up for everybody, Alan, it depends on your browser. Secondly, if you are indeed interested in the venue information it is not convenient to have to hover over every footnote just to see where an even is held. Footnotes are a barrier between the reader and the information. They should only be used for providing information that the reader doesn't really need to look up, but is available should they wish to (e.g. references, clarifications etc). Betty Logan (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: Your point about different browsers is well taken. But how important is the venue/town/city information anyway? I would have thought that the vast majority of readers of these tables are mostly interested in who won and lost, and what was the score. The venue information seems to me to be of secondary importance, but it is the main cause of problems with table widths and text wrapping. Maybe we should revisit Nigej's suggestion, from earlier in this thread, about having a separate table for venues, for those readers who are interested.  Alan  (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Text-wrapping is an issue that can be easily avoided. As for the table widths, people read these articles on a myriad of resolutions, ranging from mobile displays to desktop computers with 20 inch monitors. We are doomed to fail if we try to satisfy everybody. If the table goes off the side of the screen and you have to scroll across, this isn't actually a problem in itself (from my own personal perspective) provided the table is designed with row continuity in mind so readers can follow the rows across. Betty Logan (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
You say that we "are doomed to fail if we try to satisfy everybody." That is absolutely correct. But you are against the footnotes solution because some browsers might require a "click" for what is, at best, information of secondary importance that takes up a lot of space.  Alan  (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
A separate table for venues is a good idea, or maybe a partially collapsible table with the extra columns default to hidden. AmethystZhou (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I see what you mean with the problem of having the year column after the venue (which often spans multiple rows) and I agree with that. It looks a bit awkward having both season and year columns next to each other, but I don't know if there's a better solution. I don't quite like the alternative in my sandbox where the year is linked to the scores, it's not immediately obvious to the reader. I would still suggest adding the country though. Most readers outside of the UK would have no idea where's Barsley or Milton Keynes. Perhaps this table is a good solution, with a note in the column header clarifying that they are all in England. AmethystZhou (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Not keen on the fact we have differing winner table formats across different ranking events (see difference between Championship League and UK Championship). Personally I prefer the ranking/non-ranking sub-heading structure in the UK article as it places less emphasis on colour being the dividing factor between ranking and non-ranking (and therefore aligns better with COLOUR). On the columns point, anything that reduces the number of them works better as it stays closer to the aims of MOSTABLES. On a wider note on calendars there are a lot of formatting changes being made but these aren't being applied consistently across seasons - 2023–24 looks completely different from 2022–23. IMO better to build consensus on these visual changes first otherwise it becomes a breeding ground for edit warring (again). Andygray110 (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@Andygray110: The Championship League is different to all other tournaments because, since 2020, we have had both a ranking and a non-ranking event each season. So trying to make it the same as the UK Championship would not be practical. If you click on the "Date" header to sort the table by date, you will see what I mean. I agree, though, that all the others should be broadly similar. On your point about the season calendars, please look at this discussion above.  Alan  (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@AlH42: I get that it's different, but it was broadly similar before (per this version earlier in the year). But likely I'm late to the party and this has been discussed before. Noted on the calendar discussion as well, thanks.
Overall, my main hope is consistency across articles re the changes being discussed is applied (to the extent possible) and not left with one outlier looking different from the others. Andygray110 (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@Andygray110: Consistency is not paramount. See Lee Vilenski's comments in the discussion above regarding the season calendars. There will always be "outliers" since snooker tournaments are not all structured in the same way which is why, for example, the Shoot-Out and British Open tournaments no longer have brackets.  Alan  (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@AlH42: I understand it's not paramount. But my views are in response to Betty Logan's comment about what the preferences of editors are (not what WP's requirements are). I have seen Lee's comment on consistency and totally agree that improvement is more important than consistency, but that doesn't mean that consistency carries no weight (it definitely does, see the lead section in WP:MOS). I think you're misunderstanding my comment on "outlier" or maybe I'm not making it clear - my point is not to ensure that all snooker articles are the same, it's to ensure that if changes are agreed, then they are rolled out consistently e.g. (btw I understand this is a separate topic) the changes made to the calendar on 2023–24 have not been rolled out on the earlier seasons yet. Of course, possibly it just hasn't been done yet as these are recent changes, but my comment is just a hope that they will be and the calendar format on 2023-24 is not an outlier with earlier seasons. Andygray110 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Consistency is indeed very important, as much as some would like to downplay the idea that it isn't. There seems to be a recent necessity to "rush through" decisions for some reason, and I'd appreciate if everyone could stop trying to finish discussions as fast as possible without achieving meaningful consensus with a wider range of editors. Just because someone is "late to a discussion" (by a few hours) or they are trying to encourage consistent application of the guidelines does not mean their opinion should be ignored or treated as irrelevant.
Going back to the original discussion, I don't know why the season links were removed from the table, they should be there for the reasons noted by @Betty Logan. I also don't know why there was a problem with the previous format before it was changed randomly without any meaningful explanation for the change. The format of the table used in this previous edit is fine, and actually central alignment of this table in other pages would be welcomed, as well as the format being duplicated. I'd also like to echo the sentiments of Betty by pointing out that footnotes are not a place to put key information: they should be used for corrective information or citations only (see the Zhao Xintong performance table re his removal from the 2023 Masters for an example of a correctly-applied and meaningful footnote).
In the case of the Championship League, it may be better to have two tables under different headings [one heading for the predominant invitational version, and another heading for the recent COVID-induced ranking version], rather than the merged version we have at the moment. It is worth noting that a lot of tournaments, over the years, have had their ranking status changed [from NR to WR, or vice versa], so this should factor into table structures wherever possible. -- CitroenLover (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I could maybe go along with the idea of making two completely separate tables for the Championship League R and NR versions. That would certainly be a way to bring it into line with the rest. There's also an argument for splitting it into two separate articles, since the format and structure of the two events are so different.  Alan  (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I was the one that made these "controversial" edits to the tables in the first place, and here's my thoughts: I fully appreciate the importance of a consistent format across similar pages, and I was planning on updating the rest later. I'm glad that there's now a wider discussion about the format, so after we reach a consensus on these I (and hopefully others) can apply them to the relevant pages. I'll continue to make mock ups (there are some in my sandbox for various things) to help the discussion. AmethystZhou (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
@CitroenLover: I have changed the Championship League table back to the "standard" format, which is not sortable, has a single column for "Venue" with no footnotes, and is therefore much easier to work with. Note to @AmethystZhou: the table is centred using style="margin:auto;" and I think most users prefer this to the left alignment that you have been using recently.  Alan  (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I made a few small changes - swapping the runner-up and score column and adding the timeline. Although, MOS:TABLE says "Wikipedia tables are set flush-left, and allowed to grow rightward, not centered on the page." so maybe we should use the default left-align for these tables. AmethystZhou (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Looks good to me. 👍👍👍 CitroenLover (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Looks OK to me too . I prefer these tables centered. As long as they don't get too wide it is not a problem.  Alan  (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Mark Allen out of 2024 Championship League

I can't find a proper reference anywhere about Zhang Anda replacing Mark Allen in the Championship League, other than the name being changed at the official website. And snooker.org doesn't have it yet either. Does anyone have any information?  Alan  (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I found an archived version (from 15 December) of Group 2 here which has Mark Allen listed as participating. That's the best I can come up with for now.  Alan  (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
snooker.org now has a note about the change, so I've used it as a reference.  Alan  (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker/Archives/2023/December&oldid=1216297367"