Talk:2012 World Snooker Championship

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Whats so wrong then?[edit]

Armbrust, this is an encyclopedia. It has no place for bulleted lists and repetitive information i.e. scores which are not notable to what the main point is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.184.47 (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with bulleted lists or repetitive information. Bulleted lists are used on many snooker articles. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 23:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Becase you go around making it the norm. You have no idea of an encyclopedia. It is not bulleted lists. This would not make a GA article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.184.47 (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2012‎
There is no policy against bulleted list, which means they can be used. And also I don't go around to make it norm. The majority of the articles already used them, when I joined Wikipedia. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 23:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No the majoritiy of articles do not use bullet lists. And yes you do since you own snooker
I meant, that the article which use them, used them before I joined the project. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 23:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is quite clear that Prose is preferred on all articles ("Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." from WP:PROSE.) Just because previous years were bulleted list does not mean that this year has to, or even should be. Consistency is one thing, but when that practice is against standard wikipedia WP:MOS practice, it should be changed, regardless of what pervious article have done. Ravendrop 23:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I can't find the quoted text of WP:PROSE. Also it says text is preferred and not that text have to be used every time. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 23:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not sure why that prose linked to MOS. The quote is from here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists under the heading prose vs. lists. And despite the semantic of the word 'preferred' the bottom line is that prose is a much better way of displaying the information that is currently bulleted. It flows better, gives better context, and the separation into first round events and controversies is a far better, and more logical, way of presenting the information (as the statements were not directly about the first round, but the tournament in general.). Ravendrop 23:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line here is that Armbrust disrupts every page he edits. No, he does not own the snooker section as much as he thinks he might. Look at the page history for any snooker tournament page and I'm talking every single page. Every time someone makes an edit he comes back to revert it, change it in the most minute way imaginable or adds something which brings nothing to the page. It's like he has to have the last word. Quite frankly it's embarrassing and so is the way his frequent edit wars go unpunished. Spc 21 (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every page? Really? Then were are my edits to the pages after these edits [1], [2], [3] & [4]. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 23:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those appear to be pages for snooker players. I said snooker tournament pages and I don't care if you find one where you didn't do what I said, your behavior is bizarre. Pages stay untouched for months on end and as soon as someone makes a change you come along to revert, change it in a pathetically minor way or add something that's not needed. Fact. Spc 21 (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like, you don't know, that making an edit after somebody edited a page isn't disruptive. Even if you don't like it. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 23:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it's simply bizarre and results in edit wars.Spc 21 (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You bully inexperienced users on here with your reverts and don't stop until you win. Now as you are on here 16 hours a day every day you will always get your way until a sensible admin looks at the history of the page and realises your behaviour is ridiculous and your edit wars incessant. Spc 21 (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency and subjective "nice looks" are irrelevant here. It seems that the MOS sides with prose for information of this sort, and it is the MOS to which we ought to defer - an enormous amount of discussion has taken place to arrive at those guidelines, and we are in no position to unilaterally upend them. Meanwhile, I think some respect ought to be shown. The snooker community should be thankful for the enormous effort Armbrust contributes to our wikipedia presence. Likewise, Armbrust, that contribution does not make you the "owner" of snooker on wikipedia, and you would do well to behave less zealously. And to 78.147.184.47, you ought to consider that making significant changes to a page without stated justification, unsigned, then using antagonistic comments like "whatever", are likely to lead to disputes and justifiably to impact your credibility as a contributor. Jordantrew (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's take a deep breath. Armbrust contributes a lot to the snooker articles and I think most of the articles would invariably be worse off without his input. So let's keep away from personal insults and try to just resolve the issues at hand, because I would say having a fully protected world championship article halfway through the friggin tournament is about as far from ideal as we can possibly be. Firstly, the preference for prose really applies to articles that are prose centred. Snooker result articles generally follow a list format, and unconnected bits of information are generally easier to digest as bulletted lists so I vote to retain them. That said I think a controversy section is a good idea, because insulting the entire Chinese playership is indeed slightly different from "notable moments" such as being the youngest player at The Crucible. I notice there are other disputes too, but I think if we agree to work through them systematically on the discussion page then we can get the article unlocked which is the priority at the moment. Betty Logan (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)I have to agree. Armbrust, you're contributions, both here and on other topics, are well appreciated. However, in this case I think you are wrong (and there goes the universal consensus that I thought was forming), and I think it would be best if you recognize this. We all make mistakes, we learn from them, and we move on. I also don't think that the antagonistic feelings against you are wide spread, though in this case bringing the issue to the talk page a little sooner would have possibly helped to avert the issue.Ravendrop 00:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see any personal insults. Doubtless his contributions are vast but his behaviour is incredibly odd. You cannot go around breaking rules non-stop and expect to get away with it. The page history of this article is embarrassing and he is the reason the page is protected. He reverted edits 7 times in such a short space of time and how he's not blocked right now is a total joke. As for discussing what the page looks like. We all know that Armbrust will mass revert any changes made until anyone in opposition submits as we have seen in the past. Don't waste your time. Spc 21 (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that Controversy section is necessary. Meanwhile, is it possible simply to agree to keep the list formatting as is for the duration of the tournament, and then have this battle later on? The reality is that both a list or prose would read well enough - the bigger impediment to the article is its being locked for updates. Jordantrew (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree that the controversy section is needed due to all the incidents that have occurred. I also think listing the notable events (now that there are so many of them) is fine. But I don't understand the need to have the scores in the final point of the first round notable events. Only four of the eight are listed, with obviously them being available below in the main draw section. Spc 21 (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed re: scores. I hadn't seen that. Unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordantrew (talk • contribs) 00:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Live scores[edit]

Resolved
 – Tournament ended. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 01:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the page has been semi-protected because of the adding of live scores. Personally I think the page is stronger for having live scores. It's one of the fastest ways to find out what's going on in the matches and I'm sure that's what most of the visitors to the page want. Just wondering what you all think? Spc 21 (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. But where do you draw the line? Every session, every frame, every point? Nigej 22:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
It's a point of contention, because technically Wikipedia should not document transitory information i.e. something that is true now should be true a year from now. For this reason some editors are against live scores; that said I agree we should be as helpful as possible, so I have added a link to the top of the results section so people who want the live scores have easy access to the information. I think it's an effective compromise that should be acceptable to editors on both sides of the debate. If it's not feel free to pull it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You draw the line at the end of the day, if you ask me. The same way that it's done at 2012 Stanley Cup playoffs where there has never been the same kind of conflict about posting the number of games won in the middle of an ongoing series (probably because only one "game" is played on any given day). I don't see how snooker is any different, especially when the score at the end of a day's session goes on to be widely reported in the media and verification is readily available. Spc 21 is correct that the visitors to the page want to see mid-match scores when there are sessions that span multiple days. The repeated cries of "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" and the insistence on deleting mid-session scores seems nothing more than fervent posturing about who has a better grasp of Wikipedia policies for an editor whilst completely losing sight of what the readers are experiencing. One minute we come to see how yesterday's matches finished up, the next they've vanished, then they're back again, then they're gone...it's all very confusing for a reader and a quick glance at the history of revisions reveals a very silly exchange between people who care a lot about the Wikipedia rules against people who care a lot about keeping the content of this one particular article up to date. I'd wager that the majority of the people visiting this page are more interested in the article content than whether or not it accurately reflects Wikipedia's policies of notability. Now the tournament is over and it makes the whole issue retrospectively irrelevant, but the fact remains that it isn't as though false information was being reported throughout the event and each mid-match score that was a part of the history of revisions provided useful, verifiable information to the readers. --Randall00 Talk 20:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Stanley Cup is a totally different situation as it is a series of matches and not a single match with multiple sessions. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 23:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very few matches nowadays are more than one session. Just the World Championship and Finals/Sami-Finals I believe. So the issue of whether to include end of session scores or end of day scores is not actually a major issue. I would suggest that end of session scores could be added. Nigej 08:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
And I would suggest such a wide issue should be discussed at a more appropriate place like WT:SNOOKER or WT:NOT. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 09:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems is that including session scores can be confusing if you are not familiar with snooker, because some tournaments have matches of different lengths. An example of this was when Neil Robertson had a 10–6 lead in the second round (this would have been a winning score in the first round, whereas in the second round it was best of 25), and someone got confused and thought he was through to the QF (see [5]); the editor obviously thought it was first to 10 and that he had won the match. At the same time I appreciate that readers might come to this article to find out what the session score is so it would be good if we could supply this information in some form. One way would be to have a clear distinction between completed matches and ongoing matches i.e. add highlighting to an ongoing match; another way would be to leave the draw sheet blank and simply add a link to the live scores as I did here: [6]. Personally I prefer the latter option, but whichever solution is opted for it needs to be clear when a match is over. Betty Logan (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 1 May 2012[edit]

Resolved
 – Requested edit was made. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change "despite trailing 12–9" to "despite trailing 9–12", you can't trail 12-9.

81.182.86.183 (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done that - good spot :-) Spc 21 (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 5 May 2012[edit]

Resolved
 – Requested edit was made. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please change the order of Ryan Days Centuries in the "Televised stages centuries"-section from 119, 113, 110, 112, 100 Ryan Day to 119, 113, 112, 110, 100 Ryan Day Komaxx (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done per [7]. --MuZemike 19:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 7 May 2012[edit]

Resolved

Change "13–5 from 5–2 down" to "13–5 from 2–5 down". Nobody can be 5-2 down.

31.46.83.121 (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nigej 18:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Well yes, you can be 5-2 down. That's very common indeed in British English (e.g. [8], [9], [10]) It's no biggie, but people should be aware of this nuance of English. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
100% true of course. But in this case I think 2-5 is clearer (visually at least). Unless someone can find a WP:... which says we should do one or the other.Nigej 11:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
See MOS:SNOOKER#Score_format. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 11:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That MOS is incorrect. It says "it is impossible to (for example) "lose 9–6". " as a simple Google search will tell you. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless "13–5 from 2–5 down" is still better. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. That is certainly not how it would be said or written in common British English. And the MOS is clearly incorrect so should be amended. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Than be bold and do it. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 8 May 2012[edit]

Resolved
 – Requested edits were made. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change "Hendry announced his retirement after losing decisively to Stephen Maguire in the next round." to "Hendry announced his retirement after losing decisively to Stephen Maguire in the third round."

It currently sounds like he went out in the second round (in which he defeated John Higgins).

Done. --BlueFire10 Let's talkabout my edits? 13:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, it should probably say quarter-final as opposed to third round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdmiralGT (talk • contribs) 13:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is also  Done. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012 World Snooker Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2012 World Snooker Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 2012 World Snooker Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on 2012 World Snooker Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2012 World Snooker Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) 03:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to take a look. The article seems to be in pretty good shape, which means my comments will probably consist mainly of nitpicks or suggestions that you can feel free to disregard. For the record, I don't know the first thing about snooker, so bear with me. (Hopefully I'll learn something!) Comments are below, in no particular order. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Could you try to fix the dead link (currently ref. 51)?
  • Usually the explanatory notes would be under their own heading, since they aren't references.
  • hadqualified and sessionby need spaces
  • enlikened – not a word, as far as I can tell
  • sabatical – typo
  • Crucible Almanac – is this reliable? It seems to be self-published: is the author "an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"?
    • Certainly is! Chris Downer writes it, snooker historian who's done statistical pieces for the BBC, Eurosport, Sporting Life etc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a lot of duplinks, including some that are fairly close to one another.
  • Capitalize BBC sport
  • Founded in the late 19th century – "founded" is an unusual word to describe a sport: perhaps "developed" or even "invented" would be better.
  • The event was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred – this would seem to fit better in the next paragraph, since at this point the 2012 championship hasn't even been mentioned yet.
  • the previous years final – apostrophe in "year's"
  • before the championship, that he hated the Crucible – no need for a comma
  • six months sabatical from the sport, – make the comma a semicolon

As expected, no serious problems. More comments to come, hopefully later today. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • as well as a qualifying draw that was played at the Pontin's, Prestatyn Sands, from 6 to 11 January. – not seeing this in the cited source. Also, might be worth linking Pontins.
    • That's cause it didn't take place there. I have replaced with the correct info (and cited). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jones was also the lowest ranked player to win a second round match; ranked world number 36 – the source says he was #36, but I don't see where it says that he was the lowest ranked. Perhaps I'm missing something?
  • broadcast by the BBC in the United Kingdom, and Eurosport in Europe – not seeing any reference to Eurosport in the source.
  • just 55 days older than Dennis Taylor and since 45-year-old Ray Reardon in 1978 – the 55-day figure doesn't seem to be in the body of the article, nor does the reference to Reardon. I also noticed that this source says that Taylor was only 40 days younger. (You could also consider removing the Taylor mention altogether: I'm not sure it's quite lead-worthy.)
  • Hendry, seven-time winner of the event – I'd make this "Hendry, a seven-time winner of the event," with a comma after "event".

Feel free to start working on these, Lee: you won't step on my toes. More comments forthcoming. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • played over several frames – the link on "frames" (to Glossary of cue sports terms#frames) doesn't seem to get me to the correct section.
  • Changed link Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • before Higginson won the four – confusingly structured with two "before" clauses in one sentence
  • announced he would take a six months sabatical – might be worth saying why, if the sources permit it.
    • so there is a few different reasons, O'Sullivan has commented a few reasons, the main one being burnout, but sources are pretty contradictory on the deal, and contemporary sources don't have much info on it, so I left blank. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm running out of things to nitpick, so I'll put this on hold. Again, most of these points aren't critical for purposes of GA promotion, so feel free to ignore them if you like. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    All my prose quibbles have been resolved; the article is comprehensible for non-experts.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Sources are reliable.
    C. It contains no original research:
    Lots of primary source usage, but that's to some extent unavoidable given the topic, and in any event there are no overt OR issues.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig finds only common phrases and reverse copyvio.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Strikes a good balance between detail and brevity.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    The fair-use rationale strikes me as reasonable, and the remaining images are freely licensed.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    No issues, although you might add alt-text
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Good work, as always. Cheers! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_World_Snooker_Championship&oldid=1196626478"