Talk:Century break

Free ball

Resolved

 – No comment over the last 2 years. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"To score a century, there must be at least ten reds on the table when the player comes to play. If there are nine reds, then he can only score 99 (9 x 8 + 27 = 99) points at best." What is, when the player has a Free Ball with nine remaining reds? Then he can get 107 points with just nine remaining reds... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.187.170.162 (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it should clarify, but it obviously means under normal circumstances. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I sorted this out a few weeks ago. I added this in:"(or nine in a free ball situation)". I don't think it needs any more detail than this. People can go to the free ball article for further clarification. Betty Logan (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Resolved

 – Merge was completed. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 15:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge List of snooker players with over 100 century breaks into Century break. -- Betty Logan (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

---

I think we should port the List of snooker players with over 100 century breaks into Century breaks, along the lines of the Maximum break article. At the moment we have two articles about different aspects of the same topic. With the Maximum break article we have one article that covers all aspects i.e. the definition of a maximum break, the list of maximums, a list of players that had multiples, and records relating to the maximum break. We could do something along those lines for century breaks: the definition of a century break, the list of players that have had one hundred centuries, and the various records relating to centuries. We can make one good article out of the two we have here and make it a one-stop shop for century breaks. Betty Logan (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support List of snooker players with over 100 century breaks had only 2 sources (and now only one), it would be meaningful to merge it to this article. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 11:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which Tournaments Count

Does anyone know if there is accepted list of tournaments that count as regards the number of centuries scored by the pros. Career totals are often quoted on the TV but no one ever explains what they really mean. I assume all ranking tournaments and PTCs count. What about qualifying rounds? Masters? Scottish Pro Championship? Premier League Snooker? etc

Also we have lists of centuries scored in each tournament in 2011/12 but not a list of the total number scored by each player for the season. (which would be much more interesting) Is there no list anywhere? Nigej 18:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nigel when chris did his list the professional tournaments he didnt include were Power snooker due to the variant rules, shoot out due to the cushion rule and general cup because of the table size every other professional tournament including qualifying stages and the PIOS and q school also counted QueenAlexandria (QueenAlexandria talk) 13:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Cue tracker

cuetracker.net has a list of century breaks from 1987 until today: http://www.cuetracker.net/pages/centuries.php?alltime&status=p

isn't this a reliable source? Eddie Nixon (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say not, because its figures clearly contradict the figures from the BBC. For instance, the BBC say that Hendry retired on 775 centuries but Snooker Tracker thinks he only made 744. The Independent (a high quality British newspaper) says Ron has made at least 678 centuries, whereas Snooker Tracker say he made 6 less than that. We do have a big problem with this page, but while these fansites are roughly accurate there are a lot of discrepencies. Betty Logan (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That's because cuetracker compiles the data from 1987 and Hendry began his career before that. But for the other players the data seems accurate. Eddie Nixon (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Out of interest, was the Chris Turner page ever actually confirmed as a reliable source or was it just assumed? I haven't hunted around the site to see if he backed up his info, but just going on appearances it looks like another fansite, albeit a very good one. To be honest, if we still haven't found an acceptable source nearly 18 months after Turner's death, the sensible thing to do would seem to be archiving the current list somewhere until we can provide an up-to-date one again. There doesn't seem much point in hosting an article with a list of the leading century makers in 2011, and at the moment we've got the worst of both worlds, where some entries in the list are more up to date, e.g. Hendry (from independent sources), while others haven't been updated since 2011. As a list it's more or less useless at the moment. EJBH (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a real problem isn't it? The jury is out on Chris Turner's site: some claimed he wasn't a reliable source (as per WP:SPS), while others claimed he was since he qualified under the exception at WP:SPS in that he was acknowledged as an expert (he contributed data to Eurosport). Personally I'm happy with him, because we would be allowed to use stats from Eurosport which may or may not have been supplied by him. In the long run I don't really know what to do about the table; without a reliable source that actually collates and ranks the data we are fighting an uphill battle. Does anyone know if Snooker Scene publishes this data? Betty Logan (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello everybody, it was Cuetracker I was referring to earlier when mentioned Hawkins', etc. no. of centuries being incorrect. CT sometimes is a few days behind, but it's clearly a database. I think calling it a "fan site" if that was said, is unfair. Also, I'd be amazed if the BBC has its own, in-house, records on player performance. Billsmith60 (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

please don't revert information which is 3 days old with one which wasn't updated in ages

Hello, I updated this page on 27 april 2013 with information from 25 april but some people thought that information that is more than 1 year old is more valuable, so instead of reverting back (read doing absolutely nothing) because you don't like that there is only one source of information please find another one more valuable, check it, and add it.

Because of moderators laziness, wikipedia community will loose reputation

p.s: there is now snooker world championship going on, and the list changes a lot, the Eurosport sport commentators complain that information on wikipedia about players is very bad and with lot of mistakes, I wanted to help, but insted found a hostile community of people who don't care about other peoples work and time.

Necromantiarian (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You didn't face hostility, you simply chose to ignore the note which was attached to the update notice: Please do not update the century counts using the Snooker.info website. Snooker statistics must be sourced to a reliable source(s), and Snooker.info does not meet this criteria due to being self-published. We realize the problem, but replacing out of date information with unreliable information doesn't solve the problem. Besides violating WP:SPS, the webmaster of Snooker.info even admits his data is often incorrect: I will use a reliable source (World Snooker) rather than Wikipedia, I have made quite a few mistakes in recent times and I believe this could be the reason why and doing daily updates should help make fewer mistakes. It's basically a hobby site, and we could probably maintain the data better ourselves if that were allowed. If there was an easy solution to this problem the Snooker project would have have done it itself. Betty Logan (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Updating "List of players with at least 100 century breaks" table

The table of List of players with at least 100 century breaks is updated up to 29 April, 2013!

Note that you cannot keep the data from almost two years ago in Wikipedia article, just with the reason that you think the given reference is not a good reference!

However, in the future if you find some more reliable reference, you can express your new reference and update the data based on that.

Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 14:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No matter how out of date the data is, it is not acceptable to update it from an WP:SPS hobby site, especilaly one that sometimes uses Wikipedia as a source. If we cannot find an acceptable replacement source then we should contemplate removing the data. Betty Logan (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, then it's better to remove the table up to the time that a more reliable reference will be found. Because keeping the outdated data from two years ago in the article is not useful anymore! Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 15:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Century break sources

As discussed in the two sections above, the century chart was removed since an up to date WP:Reliable source could not be found. Currently, an editor keeps restoring the section with the following three sources:

• "Century Breaks". SnookerInfo. Retrieved 6 October 2013.
• "Brejki 100+". 147.com.pl. Retrieved 7 October 2013.
• "Snooker's Leading Century Makers". cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk. Chris Turner's Snooker Archive. Archived from the original on 10 February 2013. Retrieved 30 October 2011.</ref>

The problems with each of these sources are as follows:

1. As explained in the two sections above (#please don't revert information which is 3 days old with one which wasn't updated in ages and #Updating "List of players with at least 100 century breaks" table, Snooker.info is not a reliable source since it is a self-published source. This is confirmed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Snooker.info.
2. 147.com.pl is also an WP:SPS site run by college students and school kids, who have no discernible background in sports journalism.
3. The final site, Snooker Archive is an out of date source that used to be used to source this information; it was run by Chris Turner who supplied the snooker statistics to Eurosport, but who unfortunately died two years ago. The source is no longer suitable since it is out of date, and none of the data matches up.

The decision was taken above with another editor to remove the chart until a reliable source ccould be found, so therefore I am going to remove this data one more time, and I would appreciate it if it is not restored without a source that has professional journalistic oversight. Betty Logan (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, thank you for detailed explanation of your opinion. I'm very surprised there is no reliable sources for such needed information. Can we comment in wiki-source the current info, not old one? Can we show the best players, maybe TOP-3 (or TOP-10), using independent media sources? NickSt (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

List of players gone again?

Although it's mentioned that the list of players with over 100 centuries has been merged with this article, I cannot see it in the current page. Was it lost again? Since the original article now redirects here, this list cannot be seen anymore in any article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.28.14 (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately yes. Since Chris Turner died (who used to maintain the "Snooker Archive" that we sourced the data from) it is impossible to find a WP:Reliable source for the chart. Some editors have attempted to restore using statistics from Snooker.info, but this is not a complete or a reliable source. Maybe we could have a "halfway house", just listing the players who have passed the thresholds i.e. 700 centuries, 600, 500 ... 100 without the actual totals, since this is often reported. (@Armbrust: ping) Betty Logan (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got to at least flag up on the page that it no longer does what it says on the tin. I followed a link to a list of players who have scored over 100 century breaks only to find no such list. It has taken me the best part of half an hour to track it down in the history. Please bear in mind that the type of information defines the likely usage and hence the necessity for complete accuracy: in this case the value of the list as it stands is greater than the damage that incompleteness or unreliability of source is likely to cause - so why do I have to hunt it out in the history? Please put some disclaimers and put the list back or remove the page altogether and all the links to it (then somebody else will no doubt re-create it) --Btljs (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Reading my comment above I realise it comes across as a bit critical and further research highlights two things: 1. That the editing has been carried out by experienced Wikipedians to whom I defer (it has been several years since I have been properly involved and no doubt the process is much more rigorous now than it was then) and 2. Surprisingly there is no obvious reference point for Snooker stats (unlike, say, cricket). That being said: if it is reliability of sources which is the issue then this is being inconsistently adhered to. Cuetracker is cited for other snooker stats (e.g. prize money) and seems to me to state clearly what data it is including (list of tournaments).

The problem then, may be discovery of mistakes & discrepancies within different sources. Here I do have some experience, having worked in information analysis in the NHS and being well used to creating a meaningful 'truth' from dirty data. For example, while the number of centuries Stephen Hendry has scored may vary from source to source it is 775 +/- 5 i.e. +/- 0.7% It is acceptable then to assume that he leads Ronnnie O'Sullivan @ 730 +/- 5 given their margins of error. I would be very surprised if the top 10 would ever vary by more than a one place change. This, then, is useful information, as long as the caveats are spelled out and surely preferable to simply not having any list at all? It is certainly in line with most other Wikipedia pages and better than some. Btljs (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The chart was removed—not by me I might add—because we couldn't find an acceptable solution. If you think you can then by all means take a shot at it. The chart is still in the article but just "blanked out", so it's easy enough to bring back. All I ask is that you don't use something like Snooker.info as a source since it uses Wikipedia as a source for its own list. Betty Logan (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed solution I have spent some time looking at Cuetracker and it seems a reliable source which allows drill down to full results in all the tournaments it contains. I cannot comment on whether it contains all professional tournaments but that is certainly its aim. It is already cited in most of the individual players' pages for century breaks (and other stats). I suspect the issue with it is the difference between headline figures (e.g. Stephen Hendry 773 instead of 775 reported elsewhere) but I think this is down to other sources including non-professional early career results - they don't say and don't allow drill down so are in some ways less verifiable than Cuetracker. I propose using the Cuetracker Centuries list clearly stating that these are professional tournament centuries. I will leave this for a few days for comments (to avoid more to-ing and fro-ing on this page). Btljs (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Update As Cuetracker provides the details of where & when all the centuries come from I compared the total at May 2011 with the results from Snooker Archive (as used by this page at the time) and Cuetracker is light for all players who started in the 90's. My theory is that this is because qualifying round centuries aren't included from earlier than about 2005 and are not readily available. Chris Turner no doubt had his own sources for this period. Not only does this mean that Cuetracker shouldn't be used for this table but it also shouldn't really be cited on the player pages for their career centuries either - unless they started in the last few years. I don't know what the protocol is - I've not found a preferable source. Btljs (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that there is no high quality source tracking centuries, which is why we are in the situation we are in. However, I don't think we need exact centuries counts. We can simply list players that have made 700+ centuries, 600+, 500+ etc right down to 100+. This will be easier to track due to the fact that often it is reported when players cross thresholds (see this example which reports Higgins scoring his 500th century). At least that way there is still some comparative distinction between those that have scored 500 and those that only made 100 or 200). Betty Logan (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. What about the players' pages? Currently they mainly cite Cuetracker (and often out of date at that). Should these be changed to e.g. "No. of centuries: 500 @ 17/04/2012 ref." ? Btljs (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Cuetracker seems to be a pretty good webiste but I'm not sure it qualifies under the Wikipedia' "reliable source" criteria. The main problem with Cuetracker is that it is missing data for older seasons so it may be ok for some players but not for others, so you basically then need another source to corroborate Cuetracker which we wouldn't actually need if we had another source... Betty Logan (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Reading though all of this, it seems sensible to use cuetracker for people like Robinson? Nergaal (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

CueTracker is a fansite and therefore not a WP:reliable source. There is nothing to stop me setting up my own CueTracker website, so it is not permitted by Wikipedia's rules. Sources need to be proper websites i.e. BBC, Eurosport etc. I have implemented the solution as discussed with Btljs above. Betty Logan (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Why??? cant we have a list with the top players? I am sure there are very reliable links for the top people so why not have at least a list with those over 200? I came here to this article looking for some top and I was really unpleasantly surprised not to find one. Even if the table is not 100% reliable, this is not a FA/FL so stop putting such a high threshold. Nergaal (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS is a threshold that applies to all articles whether they are stubs or featured because it is more important. If we had such a source then we would use it, but the table you added was had inaccurate data and was misleading. As you can see we are discussing appropriate solutions and we will progress when there is a consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Backup table

I want ahead and trimmed down the hidden table to a sensible size with a reasonable amount of refs. The complete table before my trim is below. Nergaal (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Rank	Player	Number of centuries	Number of seasons as Pro	Number of maximums	Refs
1	Stephen Hendry	775	27	11
2	Ronnie O'Sullivan	678	20	11
3	John Higgins	500	20	7
4	Steve Davis	325	34	1
5	Ken Doherty	300	22	1
6	Peter Ebdon	300	21	2
7	Jimmy White	289	32	1
8	Mark Williams	284	20	2
9	Stephen Maguire	250	15	2
10	Marco Fu	226	15	2
11	Ding Junhui	221	9	5
12	John Parrott	221	27	1
13	Matthew Stevens	220	18	1
14	Anthony Hamilton	218	22	0
15	Mark Selby	214	14	1
16	Shaun Murphy	210	15	1
17	Neil Robertson	200	14	1
18	Alan McManus	165	22	0
19	Ryan Day	162	15	0
20	Stephen Lee	160	20	0
21	Stuart Bingham	156	17	3
22	James Wattana	149	23	3
23	Andy Hicks	134	21	1
24	Ali Carter	131	16	1
25	Graeme Dott	129	18	1
26	Dave Harold	126	21	0
27	Willie Thorne	126	26	1
28	Joe Perry	124	20	0
29	Judd Trump	123	7	0
30	Fergal O'Brien	123	21	0
31	Mark Allen	120	10	0
32	Tony Drago	119	27	1
33	Dominic Dale	117	20	0
34	Robin Hull	115	16	0
35	Mark Davis	115	21	0
36	Paul Hunter	114	11	0
37	Barry Pinches	113	23	1
38	Darren Morgan	111	18	0
39	Jamie Burnett	109	20	1
40	Ricky Walden	108	13	1
41	Jamie Cope	105	11	3
42	Tom Ford	102	12	2

Cuetracker updates

Yes, it is not a RS, but [1] suggests a few extra things that one might be able to find refs for:

• Ding Junhui, Neil Robertson, Steve Davis are 350+
• Mark Selby, Marco Fu, Shaun Murphy, Mark Williams are 300+
• Judd Trump is 250+ (he should not be at 100 since he made 60+ just last season)
• Stuart Bingham, Mark Allen, Ryan Day are 200+
• Joe Perry, Allister Carter, Mark Davis, Ricky Walden, Fergal O'Brien, Dominic Dale are 150+
• Barry Hawkins should be added at 150+
• Michael Holt, David Gilbert, Martin Gould, Nigel Bond, Liang Wenbo, Mark King, Robert Milkins, Joe Swail should be added at 100+

Nergaal (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Missing entries

• Ian McCullogh said he made 105; cuetracker says 97 but this also says 105

Nergaal (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

How about some reliable sourcing?

I find the recent flood of sometimes WP:REVERTWARring edits to be troubling. It can't be that hard to settle on which sources are reliable and mine them for data. There are not enough recorded century breaks in pro snooker on an ongoing basis to justify this level of article chaos. I'm getting more watchlist hits for this article than any other!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

What article "chaos" are you referring to? There have only been three reverts so far this May (all by me) and to be fair there is always an element of instability at the time of the world championship. Yes, there is some disagreement among editors over which sources are acceptable and your input to the discussions about those at Talk:Century_break#Century_break_sources and Talk:Century_break#List_of_players_gone_again? would be most welcome. The recent flurry of activity has been due to the fact that the list of centuries was restored and we are attempting to find new sources to replace the out-of-date source that was being used. The recent edits by Btljs (talk · contribs) and myself are in accordance with what the two of us agreed was the correct approach, and my revert earlier today was only due to the fact he had used a source that had used Wikipedia as its source i.e WP:CIRCULAR. I suspect this activity will continue for some time, and I suspect that occasionally editors will try to update the counts using snooker fansites, but at the moment I see the article moving in a positive direction than being stuck in a "revert war" cycle. Betty Logan (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

My first reaction coming to this article was similar to yours SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) but since then I've done a few hours of web trawling and there is simply no obvious reliable source where you can get player century counts. I like Cuetracker a lot since you can drill down to individual seasons and tournaments to find out where a player got all their centuries but unfortunately when I did this for Jimmy White (who has a higher score on Cuetracker than other sites) I found he had been wrongly awarded 2 centuries in one Pot Black tournament which has only had 6 in its entire history (corrected by SO when I pointed it out). I'm sure that if I looked at other players I would find similar errors. No other site gives this facility and they differ from each other - so how would you choose? It is a strange thing in a sport which seems built for detailed statistics - you can't imagine having any trouble finding cricket centuries and you don't, e.g.Cricinfo but we take the world as we find it not as we wish it to be. There are news articles out there but it's a bit of a slog finding them (especially when they quote Wikipedia in a supposed interview grrr.) and they will never add up to a definitive and up to date table. On the other hand, there is little value in Wikipedia regurgitating a table from another site but there is value in it making people aware that sources should be treated with healthy skepticism. Btljs (talk) 08:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

remaining missing entries

• Michael Holt: does youtube count as a RS?
• David Gilbert - 2012 UK Championship
• Martin Gould - 2014 European Tour - Event 8
• Nigel Bond: this?
• Liang Wenbo - 2013 Indian Open
• Mark King (Done Btljs (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC))
• Robert Milkins - 2013 Australian Open
• Joe Swail - 2013 European Tour - Event 4

Swail had 93 in Oct 2011. I am sure that with that and a few other refs one could get to 100. Apparently he had 7 just in the 2011/122012/13 season. Nergaal (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

This is where I'm a bit hazy on Wiki-law. Does it count as original research if you add together two totals from different references? Maybe @Betty Logan: can help? Btljs (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You are allowed to do basic arithmetic, but you have to be careful the sources don't cover the same period. For instance, during the world championship we had a source for Robertson's century count going into the world championship and had a running total throughout so were able to deduce the overall total. Betty Logan (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I've seen a few featured lists using something like:

• <ref group=note> explanation of how data was obtained from ref1 and ref2. </ref> .

Nergaal (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

That Nigel Bond article is fine I reckon. Are you going to put him in? Youtube isn't the source: it's Eurosport or whatever, which is OK if it says it on the recording somewhere. Also I think we only need one source for each entry on the table - the most recent or most accurate. Btljs (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

As per Btljs. Youtube is just the host so the RS status of the video comes down to who made it. Since the Eurosport video has a huge Eurosport logo on it then it's it's clearly legit. Betty Logan (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

another site

Is this site reliable? I found a few seemingly good links there but the figures they provide are significantly below the cuetracker numbers. For updated figures see:

• http://www.therichest.com/sports/other-sports/top-10-highest-earning-snooker-players-in-2013-14/
• http://www.therichest.com/sports/other-sports/top-10-highest-earning-snooker-players-in-2013-14/2/
• http://www.therichest.com/sports/other-sports/top-10-highest-earning-snooker-players-in-2013-14/3/
• http://www.therichest.com/sports/other-sports/top-10-highest-earning-snooker-players-in-2013-14/5/
• http://www.therichest.com/sports/other-sports/top-10-highest-earning-snooker-players-in-2013-14/7/
• http://www.therichest.com/sports/other-sports/snookers-10-highest-career-prize-money-winners/
• http://www.therichest.com/sports/other-sports/snookers-10-highest-career-prize-money-winners/5/ (at 298 + those in 2014)
• http://www.therichest.com/sports/other-sports/snookers-10-highest-career-prize-money-winners/8/ (245 + those in 2014)

Nergaal (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I looked at this site before and personally I wouldn't touch it with a barge-pole. This is mainly because their 'top 10's are usually subjective things like 'Top 10 Sexiest Female sports stars'. Their terms and conditions page states: "2. ACCURACY:

TheRichest is an entertainment based website providing commentary, general information in relation to celebrities, luxury items, athletes, businesspersons, public figures, lifestyles, wealthy individuals, current trends and entertainment. Information on the site may contain errors or inaccuracies; the Website does not make any warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the sites content. The Website does not provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy of the information. You acknowledge that such information and materials may contain inaccuracies and errors and we expressly exclude liability for any such inaccuracies or errors." This doesn't necessarily make them any worse than many other so called news sites but I wouldn't put much faith in them scrupulously researching their articles.(This is only my opinion). Btljs (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It is user edited so doesn't qualify. Here is a profile of the author for the first link provided. Betty Logan (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

more records

Are these sites reliable? Nergaal (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• this says "Walter Lindrum compiled an unofficial 100 break in 27.5 seconds" "William (Billy) Mitchell became the first player to make a thousand break in public"
• [2] says "Stephen Hendry ... the first player to achieve 100 century breaks in competitive play in one venue", "John Higgins scored the 1000th century to be made at the Crucible Theatre",
• [3] "Stacey Hillyard became the first female to record a competitive century", "In four consecutive frames Jim Meadowcroft made breaks"
• [4] says Davis, Joseph [Joe] (1901–1978) "In January 1928 he made the first public snooker century break", " In 1951 and 1954 he made century breaks in three consecutive frames and in 1955, having just made a break of 146, he achieved his dearly held ambition of a break of 147"
• [5] "Three consecutive century breaks were first compiled in a major tournament by Steve Davis: 108, 101 and 104 at Stoke-on-Trent, Staffs on 10 Sep 1988. In 1998 John Higgins (Scotland) (b. 18th May 1975) became the first to manage the feat in a World Championship match. Peter Ebdon became the first to make four century breaks in five frames, in the European Open qualifying competition at Blackpool on 6 Sep 1992. Stephen Hendry made seven centuries in the final of the 1994 UK Championship, which is a record in a professional match. He also became the first player ever to make five centuries in seven frames""Mark Allen begun his match against Smith with a 111 break, making it a phenomenal six centuries in seven frames." "Michael White is possibly the youngest player to make a century break."

First to 100?

Who was fist to 100? Was it Davis or Hendry? Nergaal (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

still missing

• David Gilbert - 2012 UK Championship
• Martin Gould - 2014 European Tour - Event 8
• Liang Wenbo - 2013 Indian Open
• Robert Milkins - 2013 Australian Open
• Joe Swail - 2013 European Tour - Event 4

had 93 in Oct 2011; had 7 just in the 2012/13 season.

• Andrew Higginson - 2014 World Champs?
• NOR Kurt Maflin is this reliable? http://welovebetting.co.uk/2015/04/snooker-tips-world-championship-day-1-tips-18th-april-2015-bbc/ or http://snookerhq.com/2014/12/14/higgins-continues-resurgence-in-lisbon/

Nergaal (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

SnookerInfo

hello everyone, I am the site owner of snookerinfo, I have not come here to defend my site or to try to get anyone to use my centuries list for this page, I just feel I should join the discussion, I understand the reasoning for not being able to use my site.

Firstly, I used to look at Chris Turner's centuries list with great interest, so when he sadly passed away I decided to continue the list from where he'd left off for personal interest, after a while I noticed there weren't any sites that showed the centuries information, I asked on a public forums and someone suggested me creating a site so everyone could have a look at the centuries totals, So obviously I did.

Since I created my site, I have had many discussions with people who also try to keep this data (cuetracker, alexa etc...) as well as people like Dave Hendon (EuroSport commentator) to confirm which tournaments a century break should not count as 'official' and which tournaments they do. I have also had Chris Turners official spreadsheet passed on to me, so I have been able to use all the tally's that he kept and continually update during tournaments. Every time I am watching BBC or EuroSport and they show (or mention) a players career total, I always check right away with mine, the vast majority have matched (only 2 or 3 since I started not matching but usually only by one and I then work on it to find what's gone wrong). I also once sent my totals to Dave Hendon and he said that all my totals matched the ones he had with EuroSport except for Ding (although the reasoning for this has since been resolved).

So really, I just wanted to join this conversion as my site has been mentioned occasionally, I thought I'd get my points across, I think its a shame that no official site records centuries totals as it is a very important part of the game, like goals in football for example, I hope we can find a way to resolve this issue and everyone can see the centuries list because that's the reason I run my site, just to share stats that a lot of snooker fans want to know about. Snookerinfo (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

So if that is true, then you have access to reliable sources? You could link BBC or Eurosport articles/videos where they mention he tally where you use the numbers. Nergaal (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Snookerinfo for the details of your work. Sounds like this is effectively primary research? The totals that Chris Turner reached are being updated and regularly checked with other people doing the same thing. It is, therefore, entirely inconsistent to exclude these totals but continue to include those of Chris TuckerTurner. Cuetracker has significantly different totals and publishes the full breakdown of tournaments year by year. For me personally, it would be interesting to be able to compare the breakdown of Snookerinfo with Cuetracker, but I realise that Wikipedians probably shouldn't be trying to influence other sites! Btljs (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Not quite sure I understand what you are saying here, where you say 'Chris Tucker', do you mean Chris Turner or Cuetracker? Also, I know that Cuetracker is always adding older tournaments to his database but I don't see how that can affect the totals that Chris Turner got to, I certainly am not questioning the totals he came to, I am just adding onto his database, as I said, I know that mine and cuetrackers totals differ, but for me, the fact that my totals match BBC and/or EuroSport is enough to tell me that I am giving as accurate stats as I possibly can to my visitors, that to me is whats important Snookerinfo (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing, but if you want to be truly useful and not just try to push your site beyond the external links section, you would not mind disclosing those BBC and/or Eurosport sources, would you? Nergaal (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

But there aren't any official sources from BBC or EuroSport, they don't very often post century totals in their articles, They just simply mention the players career totals during the commentary of a match, usually when the player is approaching another century.

And I'm not trying to push my site beyond the external links section, I just thought I should get involved in the discussion because my site has been mentioned in this talk page a few times, I'm not saying I want you to use my totals, I'm happy for people to just continue viewing the centuries list on my page whilst people coming here to view the centuries list won't be able to until BBC or EuroSport publish...which will probably not ever happen. Snookerinfo (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Any of those matches got posted somewhere like on youtube? Nergaal (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You think I'm going to watch hours and hours of footage just to find when a commentator mentions a players century total and that is only so I can source one player, why waste all that time just so people can look at one player's century total on wikipedia, I might as well save myself the time and people can just come to my site if they want to know century totals. Snookerinfo (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - I don't think Chris Tucker has time between making movies to keep a snooker database! Seriously, I realise I have to tread carefully where Chris Turner is concerned, and I, in no way, cast any aspersions on his totals. Or yours @Snookerinfo:. But there were lengthy discussions on this page about which sources are appropriate for Wikipedia and the conclusion was/is that no self-edited site can be used. Snookerinfo, Cuetracker and Chris Turner all seem to come under this category, however accurate they all may be. I don't know how BBC, Eurosport etc. get their stats but they may pay a subscription to a research company or the WPBSA may share this info with them but not put it publicly on their pages - that is where you should be putting pressure @Nergaal: if you want better coverage. Btljs (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Chris Turner was the snooker stat guy for Eurosport so his personal archive most likely qualifies under WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. You can view some of his publications at [6] & [7]. I don't know who provides the stats now, maybe Dave Hendon who commentates for them and edits Snooker Scene. The BBC most likely maintain their own sporting stats. IMO it's one of the things that really sets snooker back as a pro sport; you can't even get something basic such as a list of titles from the official site. Even since Barry Hearn took over, snooker has still basically retained a semi-amateur approach to management (the rankings were devised on a fag packet!) so I don't hold out much hope for the WSA getting its act together in this regard. Betty Logan (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

As Chris Turner isn't around to defend his totals, the point is moot. But is nobody else intrigued how Cuetracker have 23 extra centuries for Jimmy White (fully documented tournament by tournament) up to the time of CT's last entry, 15 more for Steve Davis and 9 more for Willie Thorne - that's a big proportion of Thorne's total? I'd love to be able to do a tournament by tournament comparison but I don't have anything to compare Cuetracker with. There's clearly an established view and if it is challenged that can only be a good thing. Btljs (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty huge discrepency beween Turner and CueTracker for Jimmy White. Dave Hendon seems to concur with Chris Turner at least in so much he hadn't passed the 300 threshold by October 2011. Snookerinfo seems to back up both their positions too. I suppose it all depends on the source for their information too, since these newer sources are possibly using Chris Turner as their source for older seasons. Barring actual mistakes, the discrepencies could come from which tournaments they count i.e. maybe Chris Turner only includes WSA sanctioned competition? Either way, Jimmy White has definitely made over 300 centuries by the reckoning of all active sources now so he's in the right tier in the table. Betty Logan (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Quick example of what I've said before, Been watching the snooker this morning, John Higgins against Robert Milkins, Higgins made a century in the first frame and the commentators said during the break he'd had 557 centuries in his career, so I checked on my site and I did indeed have 557, Milkins made a century in frame 3, commentators said its his 105th century, checked my records, it is indeed his 105th.

The problem with linking it as you said, this match is not going to be put on YouTube, so there is nowhere online I could link it to, And I'm not going to pause my TV and video it just to link one (or two in this case) players century total.

What I'm trying to say is though, When something like this happens, I check my site and realize for the player I'm checking, I have the same total as an official source, that makes me happy and more re-assurance that I am indeed giving accurate facts to my visitors. Snookerinfo (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It's copyright anyway, so you can't just record it, upload it and link to it. Good for validating your site but no use for WP unless the match is provided in a permanent form by the broadcaster. Btljs (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I know, that's partly what I meant, I was referring to what someone said earlier in this conversation about me linking to a video of the commentators mentioning career totals for the player's Wikipedia page, EuroSport/BBC will not upload it, BBC do upload snooker videos and they only occasionally upload videos of century breaks, even then it is only the three major tournaments.Snookerinfo (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Review of Players with 100 century breaks list

The list is now pretty out-dated overall, but with a few accurate figures (eg. O'Sullivan).

For sourcing, the tally on the individual player articles seems to be more accurate?

For instance, see Joe Perry here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Perry_%28snooker_player%29

Century breaks = 189

Yet on the list on this page he's in the 100 threshold, not the 150 one.

Perhaps it needs a systematic review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.130.148 (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The Joe Perry article gets its century count from Pro Snooker Blog which is a fansite and therefore not a WP:Reliable source. The reason some of the data is out of date is because there is no official source tracking centuries, so we are reliant on things like the BBC and Eurosport publishing the data. Obviously if they don't it doesn't get updated. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The Beeb published figures for the top 5 when O'Sullivan equalled Hendry's record. We should include that I think. Also, could we add a column to the table for ones for which we do have an accurate reliable sourced figure? Including the date obviously: e.g. |O'Sullivan|775|13 Jan 2014|

I don't see the point really, because we will still end up with the same problem i.e. outdated figures. It would take us back to the old problem where we had counts that are several months out of date. If the BBC maintained a regular top 5 or top 10 list and updated it after every tournament then that would make the case slightly different, but it's highly likely they have only done it this time due to O'Sullivan breaking the record. Once Ronnie moves ahead of Hendry the order of the top 3 will remain constant for at least another 3-4 seasons, but there are a bunch of players around the 350 mark: Robertson, Ding, Davis, Selby and Fu and I would expect those positions to swap around fairly quickly over the next couple of seasons. The fact is, until either the BBC or World Snooker take on the responsibility of providing regularly updated stats this list will always be playing catch-up. Betty Logan (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

We already have a list with outdated figures - not only that they are limited to 'thresholds' and I'm not even sure what the division is - 25, 50 or 100? It's fair enough to round figures for say, book sales where nobody reports them accurately ever, but if they are even occasionally reported accurately, like record sales or century breaks then this should be included. Otherwise you are with-holding information that is properly sourced and accurate at a given date. Btljs (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If someone has reached 300 centuries then they have still reached 300 centuries even if they have reached 340 centuries. We are not misrepresenting facts with the current system. However, if you say Mark Selby is on 348 centuries or whatever, then that will be incorrect by the next tournament. As it stands it is impossible to keep player totals completely up to date, so the whole chart becomes a nonsense if you have some players ranked by stats from last week and others ranked by stats from a year ago. You are asking for a system that is impossible to implement with the information that is currently on offer. Betty Logan (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for centuries table

This is my idea for including actual figures where possible. Not every player will have an actual figure in which case there should still be a ref for the threshold with a corresponding date. I'll wait for comments to see if there is any consensus on whether this is an improvement or not.

Key

†	Retired player

Threshold	Player	Total	Date	Ref
750	Ronnie O'Sullivan	776	15 Jan 2015
	Stephen Hendry	775	26 June 2014
550	John Higgins	568	13 Jan 2015
350	Neil Robertson	394	13 Jan 2015
	Ding Junhui	378	13 Jan 2015
	Steve Davis		1 Jan 2013
300	...etc...

References

(references not necessarily correct in this mock-up) Btljs (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice idea, but I think it is still problematic as it would need to be updated very frequently in order to be accurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.130.148 (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to get accused of nitpicking but "Ronnie O'Sullivan had 776 century breaks as of 15 January 2015" is exactly as accurate as "Steve Davis had 312 century breaks as of 12 December 2003". Both are more accurate than "As of 18 January 2015 Steve Davis had more than 300 century breaks and Ronnie O'Sullivan had more than 775 century breaks" The most accurate information we can present is 1. the most up to date reliable reference and 2. the most precise figure and I'm proposing a table which includes both. Btljs (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

But you are not actually proposing a table of accurate information are you? What you are proposing is a table which will have a handful of accurate figures—if we are lucky—and mostly inaccurate information. What is the point of saying Mark Selby is on 338 centuries when he isn't? We would just be misleading readers in most cases. Having sensible ranges gets around the problem of statistics that are out of date within a couple of weeks. Betty Logan (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've opted for making the table even less accurate. I give up. (By the way if your thresholds - which are not stated - are every 50 then RO and SH should be 750 not 700) Btljs (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Retired players

I think the retired players can and should have their exact count listed in parenthesis after their name. The number will be accurate and won't break the current clarity. Nergaal (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

That seems very reasonable to me. Obviously in the case of players like Hendry and Hunter the totals are not going to change. Betty Logan (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Intro

I would like to reorganize the intro my moving most of it into a separate ?method(s)? section and then summarizing some of the stuff from below. Any ideas? Nergaal (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Take a crack at it if you want. Betty Logan (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Flag icons

According to WP:MOSFLAG nationality flags should only be used if someone is actually representing their country. These players scored most of their breaks in tournaments where their nationality was either irrelevant or only an entry requirement. They should be removed. Btljs (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Btljs (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

first to career 100 cents

steve davis: http://cuetracker.net/Statistics/Centuries/Most-Made/Decade/1980-1989?status=Professional . Nergaal (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Changes to century break counts

Will editors please observe the editing note in the list section and not change the century break counts based on fansites and blogs. Wikipedia policy states that fansites/blogs etc are not suitable for sourcing. All statistics should be attributed to professional sources with editorial oversight. This has been discussed on several occasions now, and websites like Pro Snooker Blog, Snooker.info and CueTracker are all run by fans and are not suitable as sources. The table should be updated using data from World Snooker and publishers such as the BBC and Eurosport. Betty Logan (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I have started an RFC which is related to this issue, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS?. Please comment there now rather than here.Betty Logan (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Century break. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140502002731/http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0,,13165~3797700,00.html to http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0,,13165~3797700,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Century break

'and requires potting of at least 24 consecutive balls' - error is the nos of ball is 26 and not 24.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7400:C800:F425:18EB:75D1:32E:9FEB (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC) 

• I can't recall right now the 24 method, but you can do at in 25: 10 * (red+black) + 5 colors (20 points). Nergaal (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• For anyone's reference, one can pot two reds in one shot, along with 8 reds, 9 blacks and the colours. This totals to a break of 100 in 24 shots, but still 25 balls.--Ui56k (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with missing User Ui56k. 24 shots, but still 25 balls.
  Somebody may kindly append his/her username in place of Ui56k. If not done by, say May 31, I will use that slot. --Moitraanak (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• I feel that the very first statement, while not incorrect, doesn't convey the entire meaning of a century break: In snooker, a century break (sometimes referred to as a ton) is a score of 100 points or more within one visit at the table without missing a shot and requires potting at least 25 consecutive balls.
  

I prefer this version: In snooker, a century break (sometimes referred to as a ton), is a score of 100 points or more in one visit to the table without missing a shot. This would require, at the very least, potting 25 consecutive balls.
Opinions? --Moitraanak (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Possible reference for Selby 400th

Hi this is Eurosport commentator's Dave Hendon's twitter would this be an acceptable source? https://twitter.com/davehendon/status/702096924984406019 QueenAlexandria (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

which ones are good enough?

• http://www.snooker.org/res/index.asp?player=177
• http://www.stuartbingham.uk.com/component/content/article?id=1:profile
• http://worldsnookerchampionship2016.co.uk/players/
• http://worldsnookerchampionship2016.co.uk/profile/andrew-higginson/

Nergaal (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC

Snooker.org is generally accepted to be a reputable source for snooker stats. Stuartbingham is self-published so is not an acceptable source. I don't know about the last one; if it is officially afilliated to World Snooker then it is probably ok but we shouldn't just assume that. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

New Records And Updating

In recent months, various snooker records have been broken, like the six consecutive centuries between Kyren Wilson and Anthony Hamilton, as well as 9 centuries in World Snooker Championship semi-final between Ding Junhui and Alan McManus, along with Ding's six centuries in that match. Is it the time to do a cleanup on such records?--Ui56k (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Records such as these should always be kept up to date, but obviously we need the sources to do this. Betty Logan (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Correction of the first televised century break

In the Section: Records > Career, it is Steve Davis and not Joe Davis whom compiled the first televised century break in 1962. See provided link in the article. FXMouthuy (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: You are mistaken. Steve Davis only turned pro in 1978 and there were certainly televised century breaks before then. Steve Davis is merely presenting the documentary in the link that accompanies the claim. Betty Logan (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2016

End of opening section - change total century breaks by Ronnie O'Sullivan to 824. Citation: http://www.prosnookerblog.com/centuries/ Rhedra (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Century break. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/CenturyBreakList/Tournament/13681
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140424035039/http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Sport/Sport-headlines/Dafabet-World-Snooker-Championship-Neil-Robertson-takes-aim-at-Don-Bradmans-mark-20140418070100.htm to http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Sport/Sport-headlines/Dafabet-World-Snooker-Championship-Neil-Robertson-takes-aim-at-Don-Bradmans-mark-20140418070100.htm

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) 14:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The first player to record 1000 centuries in public performance was Horace Lindrum.

The citation is a book so I can't view it. Since 1000 is more than the all-time record of 847 (and counting) may I presume that Horace Lindrum got 1000 centuries... in billiards. Since this article is about snooker, not billiards, this should be removed. I suppose ideally there should be a billiard section to this whole article and the Lindrum citation should go there. I will try and track down the book on Google Books, which would settle the issue all together. 2.30.97.96 (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I have the book and I can verify that Horace Lindrum's record is a snooker record. The "all-time" record in the chart applies only to professional tournaments, but prior to the 1970s the professional circuit comprised mostly of exhibition events. O'Sullivan and Hendry have probably made well over 1000 once you factor in exhibitions. In fact Hendry is on record saying he stopped counting centuries once he got to 1000. Betty Logan (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Some things to note

I can see the records page have been updated to include the newest records, but there are a few things to note:

• The there are a total of five instances of 8 century breaks (previous record) in a match before the Ding and McManus match, where the record was broken. The first three were recorded, but the last two weren't included: Quarter-final match between Neil Robertson and Barry Hawkins, and semi-final match between Shaun Murphy and Barry Hawkins. Both instances were in the 2015 World Championship.
• The most centuries in a tournament record (16 by Stephen Hendry atm) did not include the qualifying rounds. Ding has actually broken the record with 18 centuries at the 2016 World Championship, including the preliminery rounds.

Maybe these facts can be inserted back into the respective sections.--Ui56k (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I have added in Ding's new match record. As for the previous 8-century records, it is no longer that relevant and it would be difficult to source so I have simply pulled it from the article. Betty Logan (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Century break. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0%2C%2C13165~3797700%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121110121031/http://de.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/snooker-ding-souver%C3%A4n-verpasst-maximum-break-160132799.html to http://de.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/snooker-ding-souver%C3%A4n-verpasst-maximum-break-160132799.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0%2C%2C13165~3729450%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0%2C%2C13165~3611925%2C00.html

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) 05:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Page updates and Wikipedia consistency

To be honest, this page is quite a mess.

It should be updated regularly, if it is going to have any meaning at all. And it should be opened for references to sites, that actually update their century-lists.

Also it does not make much sense, that the players' individual pages show different century-counts than this page.

If the page is not allowed regularly updates, maybe it should just be closed down altogether?

In no mean spirit ~ Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This page should be updated in line with reliable sources, as and when they become available, which is the standard practice across Wikipedia. You have repeatedly altered the figure for Andy Hicks without supplying a source. Yet, the source used for him (updated as recently as 2 days ago) has him on 149. Meanwhile https://snookerinfo.webs.com/100centuries has him on 150 while https://cuetracker.net/statistics/centuries/most-made/all-time has him on 151, so who knows what the correct figure is? We can probably be reasonably sure it is around 150, but there is no concrete evidence he has crossed that threshold as yet.

But aside from the potentially inaccurate edit is the nature of your editing. You have been registered since 2010 and have over 5,000 edits to your name so you are hardly a novice but have demonstrated a complete disregard for Wikipedia's policies. You must be aware by now that you should source your edits. You may well have obtained the information for Andy Hicks from a reputable source but since you did not source the edit is impossible to evaluate. In fact your edit left the figure contradicting the existing source. Wikipedia is a not a live news service, it is an online encyclopedia and as such information grows old and becomes out of date. But here's the thing: if the fact is accompanied by a source with a date readers can see how old the information is. Your recent edits that deleted sources because they contained dead links is borderline vandalism. WP:LINKROT quite clearly states "do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer". The reason for that is because you make it impossible for an other editor to fix the URL, but you also leave the reader wondering where the information came from and how old it is. The outdated information in this article is not ideal, but you are exacerbating the problem, not fixing it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

You should try to bring some consistency. And I do not care much for your tone. It is in breach with Wikipedia etiquette. I understand that you feel some kind of ownership of this page, but I have next to no respect for your attitude. Well, anyways.. do you have anything to say on the issue of consistency? Or is it too hard a question to handle? ~ Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

My tone would be much better towards you if your editing was much better than it is. Asking other editors to abide by site-wide policies is not "ownership"...owenership is when an editor prevents the updating of an article in accordance with the established policies. The problem here is that you are not updating the article in line in a manner consistent with WP:Verifiability. Perhaps the problem here is not the page but rather you are not simply suited to Wikipedia. You don't want to supply sources for your edits, you remove the sources that we do have, and you expect Wikipedia to operate like a live scoring service (which it is not, see WP:NOTNEWS). Please either stay away from the article or follow the basic rules of the site. I shouldn't be having to spell this out to you—it is a basic tenet of Wikipedia and something that most editors master within a matter of weeks if not days. Betty Logan (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I will just leave you with your little kitty-project and this non-up-to-date page. My tone towards you would be much better, if I had any respect for you and your actions. However you do not deserve any respect, and thus you quite naturrally will not get any. ~ Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 07:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I have pointed out a multitude of policy violations you have committed at this article. You are the problem, not me. I notice another editor on your talk page has also told you it is not appropriate to remove dead sources. If you are not willing to take criticism on board and continue with your disregard for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines then it is only a matter of time before your editing privileges are revoked. You have been on the site for 8 years and have over 5,000 edits to your name so there is no excuse for your conduct. If you can point out any policy violations I have committed I would be happy to correct them, which is essentially the difference between us as editors. Betty Logan (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I have already tidied much up on this page, and I really can not take your attitude serious. Now you are even attributing motives to me, that I do not have. To me you are just and idiot, and that is all there is to say about it. You should try to work on that. ~ Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Interesting to look at the German article: de:Liste der Snookerspieler mit mindestens hundert Century Breaks. This uses snookerinfo.webs.com/100centuries for its blue list and provides a cuetracker list (in red). As we know, cuetracker is missing some events used by the "official list" (whatever that is) and probably includes some that are not in the official list (variant events, I suspect), so cuetracker is not suitable for our purpose. Whether snookerinfo.webs.com matches the official numbers I wouldn't know but its blacklisted (MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log/Full_list#October_2017) too, so not usable anyway. The lack of references is, of course, partly to do with the blacklisting of some sites. People are just leaving out references since they can't put them in, one of the reasons I disagree completely with Betty Logan about the blacklisting. Personally I'd rather have a reference from an unrealiable source than nothing at all. One option is to simply abandon the whole thing until a reliable source appears - remove Century breaks from the infobox, etc. Nigej (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

There are two problems here: a sourcing problem and a behavioral problem. The sourcing problem is that only fan sites actually track this sort of thing and there is no centralised reliable source for these statistics. This has led to a dependency on fan sites, and the discrepancies relating to Andy Hicks demonstrates the problem with a fan site: as you can see above for Hicks the estimate of 150 centuries is approximately accurate but all three sites give different figures, so two of them must be wrong by definition. This means the odds of us entering correct information is against us. The idea of using thresholds allows us to circumvent this to an extent because it is factual to say that Hicks has made over 100 centuries, regardless of whether he has made 149, 150 or 151, although if editors don't like the approach I would be open to scrapping the table. I would rather have no data than bad data.

But there is also a behavioral problem here too: Thomas has repeatedly altered snooker statistics across a whole range of articles and I have never seen him add a source. There is a recent example at the Steve Davis article where he changed the figure (his end career total) without explanation and without a source. Thomas can see the source there (the BBC no less), he knows why the source is there, and given that he is a seasoned editor he should know that it is wrong to change information so that it mismatches the source. Betty Logan (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes there sure is a behavioral problem here. The problem is this Betty Logan figure running some kind of vendetta against me, because I updated some info in my tidying up of this page. And also this Betty Logan attributing random motives to me. My real mistake, however, was to engage in dialogue with this dishonest person. So I will refrain from doing that in the future. ~ Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Players with 100 century breaks in professional competition – As it is, the list is useless

As alluded to earlier, this article is a mess.

In particular, the list of players with 100 century breaks in professional competition is useless, when century counts are updated with links still referring to old counts.

Also, the article includes several links only available to UK users. This last point is not in breach of Wikipedia policy, though. It is just an additional weakness.

In no mean spirit – though previously being accused of "borderline vandalism" by that Betty Logan figure. Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The reason some of the counts don't match the sources is because people come along and change the figures without updating the sources, and as a result the list has been corrupted. If you have a problem with the state of the list there are two choices: i) restore the counts to the values in the sources; ii) update the sources to match the counts, if you can find one. Betty Logan (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, obviously that is the reason. And once more I have addressed the problems associated with this article. It seems we have a list of 13 confirmed century thresholds out of 66 in the list. That's a fine tally. Great list. This page is not a mess, I'm sorry. Yes, changing the century counts to outdated figures seems like a good solution. Or maybe just delete the list altogether, as we do not have sources for it in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with deleting the list if that is what you want to do. No data is better than wrong data in my book. Betty Logan (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Question on reliability of specific source used in this article

Hi fellow Wikipedians. I would like to ask, if there is consensus on using "RKG Snooker" as a Wikipedia source(?) The source in question is used quite a number of times in this article, and if it is regarded a reliable source, it seems possible to tidy up the list included in the article quite a bit. However, I'm not sure, the source meets the required criteria(?) Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I would say that it is almost certainly not because it replicates errors from other fan sites. For example, it has Steve Davis on 338 centuries whereas both World Snooker and the BBC have him on 355. They both can't be right, so who do you go with? World Snooker and the BBC, or RKG Snooker? Betty Logan (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed list of players with 100+ centuries

I provided a confirmed list of players with 100+ centuries. The solution might not seem ideal, but maybe it is better than deleting the list altogether. The latter seems to be the only other alternative. Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I can live with this compromise. But with the secondary list I don't think we should be promoting players to the next threshold if there is a lack of consensus between the sources. For example, the three main fansites (Cuetracker, Snookinfo and RKG) have three different totals for Selby. Obviously only one at most can be correct and we have no idea which one it is. It is a safe bet that Selby will make six centuries over the next couple of tournaments so we should wait until all three sites have him 550+ before moving him up. Betty Logan (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Fansites being used as sources

Once again, I have had to revert changes initiated by editors using questionable sites as sources. Cuetracker.net, Snookerinfo.webs.com and Rkgsnooker.com are not WP:Reliable sources because they are fansites/blogs/self-published per WP:SPS. Moreover, they are inconsistent. It is worth comparing the three sources with the official World Snooker statistics:

Player	Cuetracker	Snookerinfo	RKG Snooker	BBC	WPBSA (official)
Ronnie O'Sullivan	982	989	989
Stephen Hendry	772	775	775	775	775
John Higgins	727	739	739
Neil Robertson	603	606	606
Judd Trump	583	584	584
Mark Selby	556	554	554
Steve Davis	355	338	338	355	355
Matthew Stevens	294	300	300

There is a clear disparity between Cuetracker and the other two sources. Snookerinfo and RKGSnooker are consistent with each other, but it's not clear if they arrived at their figures independently. One list may be using the other. The Cuetracker counts tend to come in slightly lower than the others, but this is not the case with Mark Selby and Steve Davis. All three sites contain data that contradicts the BBC and World Snooker itself: Hendry once held the widely reported world record of 775 centuries but Cuetracker is coming up three short; likewise, when Steve Davis retired both the BBC and World Snooker put his century count at 355 (which Cutracker accurately records) but the other two sites have him way down on 338. It is clear that to the extent that World Snooker and the BBC are accurate, then these other sites must be inaccurate.

Given how difficult it is to track down up-to-date century statistics, then if we are going to log this information we are dependent on fansites for it. Taking Matthew Stevens as an example (who seems to be a recent source of contention) he has obviously compiled approximately 300 century breaks. However, we don't actually know which source is correct here: one of them at least must be wrong, and given that all the sources contain inaccuracies it is not obvious which source—if either—is correct. In my view, if we are going to use a fansite to increment the counts then we should wait until they all consistently put the player over that threshold! For example, all the sources now have Neil Robertson on over 600 centuries so I think its is reasonable for the table to reflect this, but I don't think it is reasonable for us to assume Stevens has passed 300 centuries on the basis of the data we have available to us. We know he has scored over 250—and this is still correct if he has scored 300 or not—so the table does not become wrong by leaving him at the lower threshold for now. Betty Logan (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

This BBC article is interesting as it uses both Cuetracker and Pro Snooker Blog as sources: It also seems to explain the potential discrepancies between the Cuetracker stats and the others with a note which says "*Centuries made in team events not included in the chart" Andrewdpcotton (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The reason for the descrepency is Snooker Info follows on from Chris Turner's old website which was missing centuries. also cuetracker includes tournaments Chris himself didnt count like the shoot out which was at the time a variant I dont watch it so no idea whether it still still a variant format. The unconfirmed list should also include Brecel wnd Gary Wilson who have also passed 100. I dont understand why world snooker cannot do a list it will take maybe 2 hours to compile as only 68 players have made 100 centuries QueenAlexandria (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Century break

I feel that the very first statement, while not incorrect, doesn't convey the entire meaning of a century break: In snooker, a century break (sometimes referred to as a ton) is a score of 100 points or more within one visit at the table without missing a shot and requires potting at least 25 consecutive balls.
I prefer this version: In snooker, a century break (sometimes referred to as a ton), is a score of 100 points or more in one visit to the table without missing a shot. This would require, at the very least, potting 25 consecutive balls.
Opinions?

Where do we go?

How can we proceed? There is no official list of career century breaks, there is no official list of century breaks per player per season, there is not even a permanently available list of centuries per tournament. On so called reliable sources numbers of career centuries only pop up for Ronnie O'Sullivan and, very occasionally, for a few other top players. So what are our options? We can keep this list with references to sport journalism sources deemed reliable, leading to a very much out-of-date and inconsistent state. We can scrap the the article. Or we can begin the real epic task of listing centuries by season, broken down by tournament, in whatever sub-article division with respective sources. My proposal would be to list centuries by season and player with reference to a main article per season. The main article per season then needs to reference respective sources. And as a summary we can add up the season results to career centuries per player.Käptn Weltall (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

What is the minimum number of consecutive balls for a century break....

In snooker, a century break (sometimes referred to as a ton) is a score of 100 points or more within one visit at the table without missing a shot and requires potting at least 25 consecutive balls. This sentence should be changed to In snooker, a century break (sometimes referred to as a ton) is a score of 100 points or more within one visit at the table without missing a shot and requires potting at least 26 consecutive balls. because 12 x ( 7 + 1 ) + 1 = 97 and this is not century break. The only way to make a century break is to pot colour ball after the 25th ball (which by default is red). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georg.kosh (talk • contribs) 06:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

No i think you are wrong. We are talking about the minimum number of balls required the get a century break, and this minimum number can only be achieved with only 10 red balls left on the table.

When there are more then 10 red balls left on the table then you are right, since you will have to pot a red ball after potting a black ball. Kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Updating the Information

I suggest that the total for active players be updated at the end of each season. For instance, Hawkins and Doherty have exceeded the relevant threshold in which they're listed Billsmith60 (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source for these? That's usually why they aren't updated, as we need to source the total amount. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

As Lee alludes too, many of the totals on player articles are unsourced and cribbed from fansites. Ideally we would update the thresholds after each tournament but there is no centrally held record of player century totals. I sometimes wonder if it would be better cutting the list at 500, because a player on 500+ centuries is generally well reported. Betty Logan (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do we have two different lists, anyway? I can't work out what the difference is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It was the result of a compromise if I recall. I wanted to remove all of the poorly sourced entries (which would have left the top list) but several editors wanted to retain the poorly sourced list (the bottom one). It is borderline ridiculous. There is no value in retaining information that cannot be sourced credibly. It is usually reported by the mainstream media or World Snooker itself when a player hits 500 centuries so the list should be curtailed at that threshold IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's ridiculous. It's not a compromise if we are just including an WP:OR list. We should cull and request actual sourcing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Billsmith60 I think you replied to the wrong section. Cue tracker is on the global blacklist as is not a reliable source, and often produces wrong information. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the "secondary list". Not only was it confusing (why is it secondary?) and mostly duplicate (largely identical to the first list), it also didn't meet WP:RS and had a long standing request for better sources. If there was any good reason to have it in the article, please explain. Renerpho (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Centuries list

Isn't it time we accepted the reality that the media and WST are using https://znookerinfo.webs.com/100centuries which is currently a blacklisted page on Wikipedia (change z to s if you want to use this link). Chris Turner kept a list (https://web.archive.org/web/20120531193415/http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Centuries.htm) which was last updated on 23 October 2011, shortly before his death. Snookerinfo took on Turner's list soon afterwards, see https://web.archive.org/web/20120218065003/http://znookerinfo.webs.com/ from 18 February 2012 which links to Turner's page and says "That was continually updated by Chris Turner who sadly passed away a few weeks ago, So I have decided to continue the century breaks list on my own website in the memory of him as he was the only one to do the century breaks list on the internet and I'm sure many people will still like to keep looking at this." There was a century list from as early as 12 February 2012 https://web.archive.org/web/20120218093259/http://znookerinfo.webs.com/centurybreaks.htm which is clearly Turner's list updated. Later there seemed to have been an idea to publish Turner's seasonal totals but only a few years were ever produced, see https://web.archive.org/web/20140811012846/http://znookerinfo.webs.com/centuriesbyseason.htm which says "First of all, all the totals from the 'up to 1986' page to the '2010-11' page were compiled by the late Chris Turner, so all credit goes to him for his hard work in gathering these totals over the years. All totals from the '2011-12' season were compiled by Alexandria Hassett (@snookerstats147) and all totals since then are compiled by myself and compared with CueTrackers' totals to ensure complete accuracy." Personally I can't see the point in us scouring the internet for specific references when the rest of the world is simply using this list. (I've had to change the url from the blacklisted pages, snookerinfo to znookerinfo) Nigej (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like too - but I really don't think it's actually reliable. For one, they state they check themselves against cuetracker - which we both know make errors. The other thing is that even if it didn't, how can we trust this list - if the BBC/Eurosport divulged where they got there info from, then it'd be fine. I suspect that WST has a list somewhere that they update and just don't publish, even if it is based on this page. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Snookerinfo is just as reliable in this area as Chris Turner's numbers, which we seem happy to use. Checking against against cuetracker seems sensible to me since this should flag up errors. cuetracker has errors (and different definitions of tournament categories) but that doesn't mean it can't be used for checking, it's just that its composite numbers like career totals are not suitable for use. At the moment this article is just an embarrassment, so something needs to be done. The main thing that readers want is a list of career totals. They hear it mentioned on the TV and see it in the press and for reasons that are mystery to me, we are reluctant to use the same source that they use. Nigej (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Do we have any proof that this is the list that the broadcasters use? If there is, then that's not a problem. Chris Turner is generally deemed ok, due to his status. To my knowledge Alexandria Hassett has never worked with any external company. These are the questions that would be asked if we were to use such a citation. I know everyone wants a reliable source, but there are some bottom lines that we need to meet. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

All sources are going to have errors, and there is no one authority that will tell us absolutely which events to include. I find WP:NOTTRUTH a great source of comfort. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's any proof, but when a number is quoted it always matches that at snookerinfo. My worry is that we're operating a system of double standards. Chris Turner is OK but Adam whateverhisnameis is not. An error like that found recently in the 1972 World Snooker Championship final, which seems to be a slip of Clive Everton's in Snooker Scene is seen as just that, but a mistake amongst the millions of numbers in cuetracker is seen as an indication that it is riddled with inaccuracies. Nigej (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any particular thoughts on the accuracy of the information itself- just that we need a reason to believe something is likely reliable. There's loads of reasons why something might be a RS - usually this is because they have an editorial roll, but in the case of Turner, someone who specifically did this job at Eurosport. The thing to remember is that we aren't just having to convince other cue sports editors, but also that this would be reliable for anyone to agree.

I don't have any thoughts on cuetracker - the blacklisting was well before my time - but if the BBC or Eurosport specifically said they used this site to check century breaks, I'd call for it to be whitelisted (at least for use in this context). Maybe we should specifically ask where the info comes from (I'm gonna send a tweet out to Dave Hendon and see if there is some info on this.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Snookerinfo is at times inconsistent with the BBC and WPBSA as I note at #Fansites_being_used_as_sources (see the Steve Davis figure). I support the removal of the secondary list. Self-published content is generally not OK, unless the person is acknowledged as an expert. Eurosport used to source their stats from Chris Turner, which was why his content was often considered a reasonable exemption to WP:SPS, but even his list is no longer used as a source for totals in this article. These lists are often contradictory (I have never found one that completely mirrors the figures that pop up on the BBC) so I think pursuit of a comprehensive authoritative list is perhaps beyond our means at the moment. A "century of centuries" is pretty arbitrary and indiscriminate when you think about it. Personally I would set the threshold at 500 breaks; any breaks above that seem to be accurately reported and we can be reasonably sure they are up to date. The snooker article rely on too much fan data—which may well be accurate—but it skirts the grey areas of Wikipedia policy. Betty Logan (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem with your Steve Davis example is that it shows that the BBC and WPBSA have at times simply copied the cuetracker total. The Chris Turner total here (when he died) https://web.archive.org/web/20120531193415/http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Centuries.htm is 325, which converts to 338 at the end of his career, per snookerinfo. So on that basis it's cuetracker that's reliable and Chris Turner thats not. The plain fact is that snookerinfo is the most reliable source there is. We can either use it or scrap the idea completely. Personally I don't see any sense in going for 500. Just scrap the lot, if we're going down that route. Nigej (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand the BBC and World Snooker do not appear to have used Cuetracker for their Hendry total. The fact is none of these sources fully match the figures the BBC use; they may have used different sources at different times. The problem I have with deferring to a fansite is that it is difficult to defend when the governing body and the BBC serve up conflicting figures. Without knowing for sure that the 338 figure for Davis is correct and 355 is wrong, how can we defend using a figure from a fansite? That's not to say the fan site is wrong, but it needs to be defendable. And what is the defence here: a fan has taken over a list maintained by someone who died ten years ago and diligantly updated it. It may be spot on, but we could easily do that ourselves on Wikipedia and cut out the middle man, but we would definitely be in original research territory with that because we would be directly creating content. It seems to me we have ended up on the wrong side of Wikipedia policy because we are attempting to do something that we are unable to do with the conventional sources that are available. Betty Logan (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't really go on the "fansite" angle. You could equally well argue that "Snooker Scene" is a "fan magazine" and dismiss that too. Nigej (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Snooker Scene isn't a "fan magazine". As a start, it has an editorial board, a company behind it, and was founded 50 years ago by a journalist and professional snooker player. I am not aware of any fansite that is held to the same standards (at least on paper; I can't speak about the quality of Snooker Scene from personal experience). Renerpho (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It's weird to see a list containing only about a third of the reported players to have passed the century of centuries mark. I have a hard time believing that EVEN unreliable lists are so off that reported players with over 250 hits can't be included in a list of those above 100. 2A02:2F0B:B407:BD00:C027:E3F4:FD7C:4983 (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

If it's unreliable, we should never use it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

My issue is that snookerinfo is not unreliable. Apart from a couple of old examples where journalists used cuetracker, in all other cases the numbers used by WST/Eurosport/BBC etc always match exactly. Clearly these organisations are using snookerinfo (either formally or simply using the data as we might do). The most recent addition here, Trump's 850th, exactly matches snookerinfo, cuetracker had 849. Nigej (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)