Talk:2011 World Snooker Championship/Archive 1

Archive 1

147 Prize?

Resolved

 – Article contains, that there was no prize money for a maximum break and is referenced. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The prize fund part doesn't mention anything about an extra prize for a 147 break. Does this mean there isn't one? Could someone clarify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.153.18 (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it looks to me like there is no prize money for a maximum break. There is no source, which mentions this information. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 09:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

During the commentary a 10k prize for a 147 (in addition to the £10k prize for the biggest break) has been mentioned a couple of times, but as you say I can't find any details on anywhere else.Jim (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually the Eurosport commentators said today there's no prize for the maximum break this year, just £10k for the highest break. GregorB (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Overnight scores etc.

Resolved

 – Tournament ended and thus scoring isn't an issue for this article. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 21:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are we not putting up mid-match scores? Surely someone who visits the page between sessions (who will be able to see from the session dates that a match is in progress) might want to see what the progress of the match is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triviator (talk • contribs) 23:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't have "overnight scores", because Wikipedia isn't a news service or a live scoring. The days of the matches are already in the draw. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 07:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of Wikipedia sports pages, such as the NHL Stanley Cup playoffs, have "in progress" scores. With matches being spread over several days and being divided into sessions it makes sense to have the score updated after each session. ShortscaleJames (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact, that plenty of other pages make it wrong doesn't mean it should be allowed. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't any reason to disallow it. It's not the final result but there is a significant enough amount of time between sessions that the end of session scores provide useful information that many people visiting the page will want to see. It also doesn't detract from the recording of the final result. ShortscaleJames (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a live scoring. If you want live scoring, than go to the homepage of World Snooker. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 12:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

But we aren't talking about live scoring. It's the state of the scores after a completed session. Similar to a league table for an active sporting season, it's not the final result but it is the definite state of affairs at that time. ShortscaleJames (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:NOTNEWS: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Scores which are not final fall under this, and thus they are not acceptable. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 12:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"Scores which are not final fall under this" is simply your interpretation of that statement. It doesn't mention scores at all but is aimed at news article style reporting. An end of session score is a definite and unarguable statistic that is as relevant for inclusion as a league table or other similar in-progress sporting update. ShortscaleJames (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The end of session score isn't notable. And it isn't just my interpretation. Eternal Triangle (talk · contribs) was indefinite blocked by an admin for such a behaviour. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 13:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Section references

There were hanging references on a bunch of sections, which I changed around a couple of times to be more in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes), Wikipedia:Citing sources. Those edits have been reverted, so I'm starting this section in the hopes of working this out with those of you who may be interested in this issue.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

These "section references" look awful and aren't consistent with other snooker tournament articles (like the 2010 World Snooker Championship). I have added some text to the beginning of these sections. What do you think? Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

References within a section containing a list are very consistent with style throughout Wikipedia. That some similar articles are not in compliance isn't a very convincing argument (there are plenty of differences between series of articles, all over the place). As I said on your talk page though, anything done to avoid the references just hanging there is fine.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Jargon

So, I'm not terribly familiar with Snooker, and I'm betting that only a tiny fraction of Main Page readers will be either, once this is posted to ITN. Therefore, all of the snooker jargon throughout the article really needs to be explained. For example, what exactly is a "Century break"? A "draw"? An "absorbing match"? Remember that we're writing for a general audience here.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think these needs to be explained. "Century break" is linked to the relevant article, draw isn't even jargon and absorbing match was in the reference. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 17:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Technical language for a good explanation of what I'm bringing up here. Links are not adequate. The article should mostly stand on it's own.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Than just do it. Do you really need to ask on the talk page to make it? Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 17:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I may be able to later on. (As annoying as they are) The tag(s) are important though, especially since this article is being considered for ITN.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? Of those examples, only the word 'break' is remotely jargon to the average reader, and it's as much jargon as 'quarter' is to American football - and nobody would ever suggest that JARGON justifies defining what a quarter is in every NFL season article - a link suffices. MickMacNee (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course I'm serious. Are you kidding? Your comparing knowledge of Snooker to knowledge about American Football? Really? Besides, it only takes a couple of words to describe these things. What's the real problem, here?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with MickMacNee. What would be next? Explain on every article what snooker is, because a person not familiar with it will not know? A link is absolutely enough. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 22:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It may be instructive here to take a look at, for example: Super Bowl XLIV. Even better, 1976 Canada Cup is a "Good Article". I don't honestly expect to get this article to GA status... well, ever; however, if we're going to feature this on the main page we should strive to try to make it a good article. ITN is for featuring good content that is applicable to recent news items, after all.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not instructive at all. 'Powerplay' goes unexplained in the 1976 Canada Cup article, along with many other terms that I know are as entry level and common usage in ice hockey as 'break' is to snooker. What you're effectively arguing is that readers should be able to read and fully understand the article on the 2011 World Snooker Championship, before they read the Snooker article. That is a very obvious ignoring of the purpose of linking articles together. It's even sort of explained in the Write one level down section of JARGON - we do not write the 2011 World Snooker Championship article from the 'reader level' of complete ignorance of snooker, we write it from the level of someone not really knowing anything about the World Championship. MickMacNee (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I see inherent parochialism there (in Ohm's Law's comments). What part of the American in American football do you not understand? Nobody else is remotely interested. The snooker audience is slightly wider and a very big ticket item in the UK in particular - it still holds the post-midnight TV audience record - not even the Apollo 11 landing can touch it. As for jargon: that is the very strength of hyperlinking. Either skip over the big words you don't understand, or find out what they mean - that is the very strength of Wikipedia. Either way, you can't argue that you were not given the opportunity of understanding. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC).

Alright, you guys "win". I'm out. *shrug*
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Centuries record for 1 match

This is cyclic wiki-ing, so obviously no external references. Can someone just check and if necessary rephrase the mention of Mark Selby becoming the first player to make six century breaks at a World Championship match. Should this read a World Championship Match at the Crucible, or in the Modern Era? I ask because the article on the 1946 World Championship indicates Joe Davis made six centuries in the (admittedly far longer) match. So something is incorrect somewhere. Sanctuary73 (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Reference says "Mark Selby rewrote the record books as he became the first man to make six century breaks in a single World Championship match." It's not clear if it was in the Crucible of the Modern Era. And without a source, it shouldn't be changed. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)