Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2023/May

Vandalism

We've had an unusual sort of vandalism recently. The IP editor changes a few details of tournament articles, although not in a very consistent way, see eg 2012 Masters (snooker) from yesterday made by Special:Contributions/90.213.223.55. Simliar edits happened a few days ago Special:Contributions/5.69.36.36 and a few times before that. Not sure there's much to do except undo the edits. Worth warning the editor (see WP:WARN) and reporting at WP:AIV if they're still making the edits or it's getting out of hand. Nigej (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Nigej - here's a daft question from a relative newcomer:

Why are "people" who are not logged in allowed to edit articles at all?

Alan. AlH42 (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a perennially requested item, that goes against one of the WP:PILLARS of the site. Because the site is "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit", IPs can edit without registering. They do have some restrictions, but vandalism like this is particularly bad. Vandalism only IPs should be reported to WP:AIV. I can block individual IPs, but sadly they look like they are article and IP hopping, so you just need to report when you see them. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally I'm against IP editors, but it is the current system. Even if we required registration it would still be the case that anyone could edit Wikipedia. Nigej (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't say I particularly think that we wouldn't benefit from having less vandalism from IPs, but creating accounts is so easy that you'd just move the problem along. It isn't likely to change soon, so we just need to AIV suitable IP/accounts. I did block one earlier today, but I'd assume they'll pop up again on another IP. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Just noticed that somebody is adding "sausage" to various players' nicknames. I undid a couple of them. One to look out for.

Alan. AlH42 (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Typical vandalism. It'll stop after the world championship finishes. The centrally maintained list noted below would help with this though. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

146 breaks

I have a list of 146 breaks (31 total) which I think is as complete as is possible.

These are much rarer than 147s, although Neil Robertson made 2 in the same match a couple of days ago.

I would like to add this list into the Maximum breaks article somewhere, probably after the main list.

The list is currently in my sandbox complete with all references.

Any thoughts?

Alan

AlH42 (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I get that it's "one less than a maximum", but is it really that notable? Do reliable sources talk about 146 breaks in this way? It's a bit of a slippery slope until we are listing all the 145 breaks. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it is notable, considering that there have only been 31 146s compared to 188 147s,

Yes - some of them do.

I wouldn't consider listing the 145s in the same way as there have been quite a few more (70 at the last count).

Alan AlH42 (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced about adding these. (But if they are, how about a mention for Joe Davis's 1950 one? He made another in 1954.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Well if there's no consensus I'll forget it.

The Joe Davis one in 1950 could certainly be added. Is there a reference anywhere for the 1954 one?

Alan AlH42 (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, A Daily Telegraph article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that Benny. I'll certainly add those two in if I can get consensus.

So far both Lee & yourself are unsure.

Anyone else have an opinion?

Alan AlH42 (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

IMO such breaks lie outside the scope of the Maximum break article. The reason we have an article about maximum breaks is because coverage of the topic satisfies WP:LISTN, but I am not aware of reliable sources covering the 146 as a topic in its own right. Betty Logan (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Per comments above I'm not keen unless there is something in the nature of an official list of these. The other point is that a near-miss of a maximum is not a 146 but a 140 missing the last black, which I suspect is even rarer than the 146. Nigej (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

OK - so it's clear enough that nobody's keen. So I'll delete all that.

On your last point though Nigej, there is only one way to score 146, but a couple of ways to score 145, and numerous ways to score 140.

I haven't done a count but I would reckon there have been many hundreds of 140s.

Alan AlH42 (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You're right, there's been loads of 140s, but how many 140s are there missing the last black? Less than 10 at a guess. Nigej (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

well, arguably there's more than one way to make a 146, the same way someone could make a 147 with a free ball. It seems all of a muchness to me. We have a very defined list of citations talking about maximum breaks, not for other high breaks. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree we don't need a list of 146 breaks. To my mind, it's not something anyone sets out to achieve, but something that happens if a player is attempting a maximum but loses position on the black. O'Sullivan made at least one 146 break in protest after the prize money for a maximum was cut, but that's a different case. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

This thread is about dead now. I've deleted the stuff from my sandbox anyway and it is now being used for nicknames. See below.

Alan. AlH42 (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

2023 World Seniors Championship

I've noticed that there doesn't seem to be an article on the currently ongoing 2023 World Seniors Championship. Not sure how these articles get created, but it would be great to have one for this event. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

HurricaneHiggins I've created the page, will add some details later. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much @BennyOnTheLoose. Much appreciated. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated this article with additional info and a tournament summary so that it could possibly be a good article nominee, similar to a couple of previous years' articles on the tournament. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

High quality article. If no one else does it, I'll cleanup what little there is to do and put it through the GAN process. I do have some plans for the World Championship article to go through the process soonish. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

That's great, Lee, thanks so much for that! And it would be great to do the World Championship article too. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, the 2022 UK Championship and 2023 Masters articles could be good candidates for promotion with fairly light editing. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Just a thought on the "World Seniors Championship" series in general. Should these articles be named "World Seniors Snooker Championship" for clarity? Not having the name of the sport in the title of the article could lead to confusion — there are world seniors championships in other sports as well, e.g., darts, badminton. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not there. They are rarely (if ever) called that in practice. Our articles for the Masters don't say "2023 Snooker Masters", they say 2023 Masters (snooker). There's an argument for disambiguation, however, there is currently nothing to disambiguate against. If there was a 2022 World Seniors Championship (badminton) article, then, yes it would probably be disambiguated. The same arguement is true at UK Championship (snooker), where the main article is disambigated, but the individual events aren't, because there are no individual events for these items - see 2022 UK Championship. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, those are all legitimate points. However, I will note that the tournament is referred to as the "World Seniors Snooker Championship" on the World Seniors website, by the BBC, and by Eurosport. We have parallel world championship article series on the World Snooker Championship and the World Women's Snooker Championship; the world seniors championship is the only one to omit the word "Snooker" from the event title. It's arguably become more of an issue in the past couple of years, with the inauguration of the 2022 World Seniors Darts Championship. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated the article after making a few formatting tweaks. HurricaneHiggins, I assume you have no objection to being listed in a joint nomination, but let me know if you do; I'm happy to respond to any review comments so there's no obligation on you to do so. As you have about 56% authorship on the article, I'm taking it that I won't fall foul of "If you are not a significant contributor to the article, you must secure the assent of the significant contributors before nomination." My contribution shows as 27% but I certainly didn't write that much of the article, and I won't be claiming WikiCup points. A GA nomination doesn't prevent the renaming of the article if a consensus emerges. The instructions make the process look somewhat intimidating but it's actually OK once you get used to it - give it a go some time! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Go right ahead, @BennyOnTheLoose! Happy to be listed in a joint nomination and to give you the required "assent". I will admit I don't really understand much about the nomination and review process, but am delighted that others here do. :-) HurricaneHiggins (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)