Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archive 6

Crucial missing articles

Key season articles are missing

Unresolved

– Topic was archived but articles are still missing; even basic stubs with stats and one source would be a good start.

Glaring redlinks: ~~Snooker season 1987/1988~~, ~~Snooker season 1989/1990~~, Snooker season 1990/1991, Snooker season 1991/1992. Also, all of them from Snooker season 1982/1983 backwards, though less important than those four. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing European master event article

Unresolved

– Topic was archived but notability question remains open.

European Masters Championship (redlink from Darren Morgan) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If this event became another event later, then a redir to the newer article will suffice, as long as the old name is in there somewhere. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The European Masters is an EBSA event i.e. amateur. Betty Logan (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it so non-notable that it should not have an article? Is it an IBSF event? I'd at least like to clarify the full name & sanctioning organization at the Morgan article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The event is sanctioned by the European Billiards and Snooker Association and it isn't a qualifying event to the professional Main Tour. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so non-notable we don't want an article about it? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Ladies' Snooker Championship

World Ladies' Snooker Championship needs an article (or Ladies' World Snooker Championship or World Snooker Championship, Women's Division or whatever the official name was.) There are zero articles here on women in snooker, and this article should cover the event, its dropping by World Snooker, and the huge impact this had, e.g. turning the world of women's pool (especially pro nine-ball) upside down, when the top female snooker players jumped to the WPBA and basically took over. See Kelly Fisher, Allison Fisher, Karen Corr for starters. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that ladies snooker doesn't tend to be covered by reliable sources, and with the ladies game being amateur the WSA site doesn't cover it either. Also, we haven't tended to cover the amateur game at all on Wikipedia. Something like the IBSF world championship and the English Amateur Championship which have launched quite a few top pro careers probably have a higher profile than the ladies world championship, and we don't cover them either. I guess you have to draw the line somewhere, and we seem to do it on the boundary of the professional game. Betty Logan (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree that reliable sources don't cover ladies snooker. Those three articles linked above seem to be pretty well sourced (better than many I could name on male players!) These results look reasonable ("snooker" is in quotes to remove references to billiards that show up otherwise). Not all of them are significant coverage, but I think there's enough there to write a reasonable article that meets WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like enough to get started with. I think period publications like snooker magazines (on paper, that old dead-trees stuff before teh interwebs) are going to be important in producing a reasonable article. Anyone got a big collection? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major missing organisation article

Unresolved

– Topic was archived but article (or section) is still missing, no where to link to.

Billiards and Snooker Control Council needs an article (or section in another article; a section at World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association would be appropriate if WPBSA simply absorbed the BA&CC), and redirects should point to it from Billiards & Snooker Control Council, Billiard and Snooker Control Council, Billiard & Snooker Control Council, B&SCC, BSCC, as well as Billiards Association and Control Council (its older name), Billiards Association & Control Council, Billiard Association and Control Council, Billiard Association & Control Council, BA&CC and BACC. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to sound like a broken record, but this still hasn't been fixed. I'm not in a position to fix it. Literally - I'm in the US, and it costs upwards of US$25 sometimes just to ship a book from the UK, where 99% of snooker books are, over here to Yankeeland. I can't afford the sources to cite. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just create the page and redirect the link to the WSA page for the time being. It could be that no-one regards an article on the BA&CC as relevant, and a redirect will take care of the red link.Betty Logan (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a solution (at present anyway). The organisation in question, in one form or another, was the publisher of snooker rules and the governing body for a long time, and is redlinked in various historical article; it needs to be there, one way or another, in one level of detail or another. However, it is not even mentioned at all at the WPBSA/WSA/World Snooker article, so linking there would be deceptive to readers. At very least, that article would need a substantial section on the World Snooker predecessor organisation and its history and constituent predecessor organisations and the overall history of snooker's evolution from a military officer pastime in India to a regulated competitive sport. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing game variant articles

Unresolved

– Topic was archived but article is still missing.

A variant of snooker exists known as "volunteer snooker" for which rules have been published. The BA&CC published rules for it; one source that is available from Amazon.com (I do not actually have it):

Mexborough, Earl of [actual name needed] (1957). Handbook & Rules: English Billiards, Snooker, Volunteer Snooker, Russian Pool. London, England: Billiards Association and Control Council. Front cover, and section on the game. ASIN B000UASH28. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |nopp= ignored (|no-pp= suggested) (help)

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be easy for someone with historical sources on snooker to document. I doubt that it needs to be any longer than the sinuca brasileira article. I'm not in a position to fix this myself, as most snooker source books come from the UK and would cost a small fortune to ship to me in the US. (I am, however, working on User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/American snooker, since the Billiard Congress of America promulgates those rules, and I have ready access to their materials.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories without main articles

Unresolved

– One is still missing a main article.

The following categories are likely targets at WP:CFD because they do not even have a stub for a main article:

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A basic Pro Challenge Series article that branches out to the four sub-articles is probably still needed, per WP:SUMMARY. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually the second category is now under the following title: Category:Snooker at the Summer Paralympics. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 20:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New articles needed

We need the following articles:

Main Tour, plus a redir to it from Professional Main Tour (an attested phrase; see e.g. "GS1" source at International Open Series). If Snooker world rankings is considered good enough, then both of these need to redirect there.

Under-21 Series, plus redirs from alternative spellings and from Pontin's Under-21 Series, etc.

Pro-Am Series, plus redir from Pontin's Pro-Am Series.

Pontin's Snooker Centre, plus redir(s) from any other name(s) for it. One of the only venues in the world purpose-built for cue sports tournaments of any kind. It is at the Prestatyn Pontin's, and hosts all of these Pontin's event series. Another one is Northern Snooker Centre in Leeds.

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Everything listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker#Crucial missing articles (non-bio) should take precedence over any further snooker article creation with the exception of current/upcoming events. Some of these articles have been flagged as missing and needed for over 4 years now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of snooker

The History of snooker article, one of our most important, is in very bad need of overhauling. It's quite an embarrassment, really. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of snooker players

Looking at the article List of snooker players, it says it is a list of professional snooker players. However, it also includes a number of amateur players and I think that many of the names should be deleted because they are not particularly notable not even in the amateur game. Samasnookerfan (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of "red-links" not currently on the main tour I'd agree. In the case of players with articles, I think they should only be removed if they've never been on the main tour. Betty Logan (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i'd say thats a good idea, so i'm for that. Any notable players (mostly former professionals) could be included in the 'needed bio' section. Samasnookerfan (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the player was a professional, then his/her link should remain on the list (even if it is a redlink). List should propably moved to List of professional snooker players, to avoid confusion and all amateur players should be removed. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Snooker

Unresolved

– No indication this has been fixed site-wide yet.

World Snooker has changed it's website, thus almost every source we use from them is dead. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you come across dead links just add a tag to them, the information may be added back to the site at some point. I don't really want to remove valid infomation just because World Snooker has deleted a load of its stuff. It's also worth checking to see if there is an archived copy at http://webcitation.org/query. I sometimes run a webcite comb on an article if

I add a reference so a lot of the World Snooker articles should be archived. This is a useful site to for finding archived copies: http://deadurl.com/ Betty Logan (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "standard" (very well funded and very reliable) site for doing this is http://archive.org and their "Wayback Machine" feature. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Career earnings

The career earnings seem to be out of date on most article and I was wondering what we should do. I can't find up to date earnings anywhere. I had a look at this site (http://www.snookerdatabase.co.uk/) but the data is wrong for most players. Does anyone know where we can get accurate and up to date information? Betty Logan (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once cuetracker.net goes far enough back in time this could be used as a source. Not sure how long it will take to get back to the late 60's, but hopefully this year/early next. (Visionaire87 (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Snooker table standards question

Billiard table#Pockets_2 needs a snooker equipment specifications matter cleaned up (preferably with a citation to World Snooker on the matter). The issue is flagged with {{clarify}}. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 10:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker articles with eponymous categories

Due to this my edit [1] and revertion [2]. Now all sports categories tree use WP:EPON rule and editors put articles with eponymous categories into the broader categories. For example, UEFA European Championship included into Category:UEFA competitions etc. Only snooker articles don't use WP:EPON rule. What do you think about it? NickSt (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EPON is a maybe-rule, it isn't necessary to follow every time. WP:SUBCAT clearly says "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory", and I don't see, why eponymous categories should be an exception to that. Note also, that comparing this to other trees isn't valid per EPON itself, which says "editors should decide by consensus for each category tree which solution makes most sense". Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General Cup

Just to make you all aware, I opened a thread here in regards to missing General Cup tournaments. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Charlton

Resolved

– Excellent work by User:Betty Logan

"Charlton was known for playing with a very straight cue action and rarely hitting the ball with any sidespin". So a top player in the world in two cue sports just depended on weight of shot, top spin, stun and screw? Is that really the case? --Dweller (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that is true or not, but there were some "plain ball" players back in the day, the great Joe Davis for one, and Charlton turned pro in the 60s. In fact, many of the pre-70s players played plain ball since the lightweight phenolic resin balls didn't come in until the early 70s, so it is highly likely Charlton started out playing plain ball. That said it is highly unlikely he would have remained competitive into the 80s if he hadn't adopted any of the new techniques of the 70s. It's a questionable claim so perhaps you should tag it with {{citation needed}} to let readers know it is dubious. Betty Logan (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a source in his Gaurdian obituary. I will add it to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, really good stuff, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament lists

In the tournament lists on season pages, e.g. Snooker season 2014/2015#Calendar, on my monitor at least, the white background used for the main ranking events, and the pale grey-blue used for "other events", are difficult to distinguish. Could better-differentiated colours be chosen instead? --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best if you raised the issue at Talk:Snooker season 2014/2015 so the editors who maintain the page can respond to the issue. If someone from the project charges over there and changes the colour scheme without their consent there will be hell to pay. If the editors at the page ignore the request or refuse to address to the issue then come back here after a week and we'll take it up with them. Betty Logan (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum break

Hi folks! I'm looking for a third opinion on this subject. Betty Logan removes the only free-licensed image of a real maximum break from its corresponding article for strange reason. Please find my explanation here and help me to reach a consensus. Thank you very much indeed, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me to be of perfectly good quality, if a little small in the article. As to its relevance, I can see some merit in including it. After all, what's the merit in having a picture of Ronnie on the page. That doesn't show a maximum break either. Having said all that, the main point against it is that Trump's 147 is not a special one (any more than any other). A picture of the first one or the first in the World Championship would be better. The primary purpose of images in such articles is really to make them look more appealing to readers. We can never actually show a 147 in a static image. So I would say: include the image as long it improves the aesthetics of the article. Nigej (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Performance timeline table

With flat draws currently being used in most of the major tournaments, shouldn't it be appropriate to use more accurate notations for defeats in early rounds, i.e. L64, L32 instead of 1R, 2R etc? Especially with tournaments like UK Championsip, a defeat in the first round in 2014 (where all 128 players started at the venue) is quite different from the same result a few years ago, yet they "look" the same on the table. —Amstedrum (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like at Ronnie O'Sullivan#Performance and rankings timeline? I think there should be some kind of distinction, since a first round defeat in the last 128 is quite different to a 1st round defeat in the last 32. We could simply convert all the 1R entries to L128/L64/L32 but by doing so we also lose the distinction between players who lost in the last 32 after winning two matches and those who lost in the last 32 in their first match. Perhaps we could have a different color code for those who lost a seeded L32 match. Betty Logan (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead worldsnooker.com links

In the process of replacing a crap website with an even shitter website, all the links at Worldsnooker.com that are used for sourcing have subsequently died. While these links are seemingly useless please do not remove them, because a good proportion of them can be salvaged by just typing in the url at http://www.webcitation.org/query and http://archive.org/web/. If the URLs are removed then it will be virtually impossible to retrieve the sources at a later date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty Logan (talk • contribs) 13:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an example:

{{cite web|title=World Rankings: After the German Masters 2015 |date=8 February 2015|work=World Snooker|publisher=[[World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association]]|url=http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles/fa/c6/0,,13165~182010,00.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=10 February 2015}}

generates

"World Rankings: After the German Masters 2015" (PDF). World Snooker. World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association. 8 February 2015. Retrieved 10 February 2015.

By typing the url into the search box at Wayback, we see the page is archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20150210122535/http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles/fa/c6/0,,13165~182010,00.pdf. This can be added to the citation in the following way:

{{cite web|title=World Rankings: After the German Masters 2015 |date=8 February 2015|work=World Snooker|publisher=[[World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association]]|url=http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles/fa/c6/0,,13165~182010,00.pdf|format=PDF|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20150210122535/http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles/fa/c6/0,,13165~182010,00.pdf|archivedate=10 February 2015}}

generates

"World Rankings: After the German Masters 2015" (PDF). World Snooker. World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association. 8 February 2015. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 February 2015.

World Snooker made the change to their website on 14 April, and I was going to raise this issue here the following day. However, I was given assurances that it was going to be fixed "They will be fixed. Not enough time prelaunch", in other words they rushed through the change for the World Championship. Over the last ten days it's seems none of issues have been resolved, but as Betty Logan said, please don't remove the dead links from World Snooker, as a number of them will be retrievable through wayback machine & webcite. Unfortunately some of the newer links won't be retrievable such as the Qualifying Format for this year's World Championship. Another issue is that when you search a url in wayback machine, you may find the url that you searched, but it may relate to a different story as World Snooker reused urls a number of times, so make sure you go trhough the captures to find the correct version. World Snooker have made a number of changes since 14 April, including their scoring system, so who knows how many more changes they'll make, so it's best to archive & add an archive url when making the addition of a World Snooker reference to articles in future. Presuming that they won't be fixed, it will take a long time to add all the archive urls to articles, so maybe if you make a change to an affected page then try & retrieve a url or two, otherwise it will be a monumental task for one user to undertake on their own. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist request

Please watchlist Big Break. "Warring anons" have been making seemingly random, and always unsourced changes to broadcast dates, number of series, number of episodes, etc. I've done a mass-revert back to a stable version. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons

FYI, there's a discussion at Talk:Century break#Flag icons regarding the use of flag icons in that article. T v x1 13:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to player pages that do not yet exist

I was wondering if there's a general rule of thumb here regarding whether to add links to players with as yet non-existent pages? I'm quite new to editing and when creating the article for the 2015 Paul Hunter Classic I couldn't work out whether the norm is to red-link certain players in the qualifying rounds depending on certain criteria. Any advice would be appreciated, cheers. Lewcario (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule of thumb is that if they are on the main tour then link them, whether an article exists or not, because it probably will at some point. If they have entered the tournament as an amateur then don't link them since it is very unlikely they will meet the notability criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UK Championship 2015 - Prize fund - Total

Hello,

although a prize for a maximum break (40.000) has been added the last days, the total has not changed. 732.000 includes the 4.000 for the highest break (which will be payed out anyway, there is always a highest) but does not include the maximum (as it might not happen this year). In my opinion total should best show both values: "732.000 + maximum break = 772.000". The comment on Tchepchaya Un-Noohs costs (40.000+4.000) include the fact, that a maximum break can not be topped. But what happens, if several players can make a 147 ? Do they each get 40.000 or 44.000 ? And what happens, if several archive the same highest score below 147, do they each get 4.000 or only the first, who archieved that score in the tournament that year ?

Please move this question to an adequate place, if this is the wrong one and excuse my english - it is not my native tongue. -78.49.170.118 (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I can answer all your questions. Firstly the £40,000 is the "rolling 147 prize" and is not part of the official prize money. It increases by £5,000 for each ranking event until it is won It is currently £40,000 since there has not been a 147 break for the last 8 ranking events. I believe the £4,000 and the £40,000 are both shared if there are 2 or more equal breaks, but I'm not 100% sure. Nigej (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answers Nigej. I tried to edit the article accordingly to make it more clear that maximum is not always 40.000 and not part of the tournament prizes. As you were not shure about sharing prizes, I did not enter that matter into the article. If you find the answer somewere, please enter it there. -78.49.170.118 (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The self-published sources about living people are not acceptable. This is both local consensus in the survey section and site-wide policy. I must also add that Nigej's argument that a source's mistakes are "less than there are on Wikipedia" is hardly encouraging. --GRuban (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the snooker player and tournament articles depend on self-published sources. Do they violate WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLOGS? Betty Logan (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background

The snooker articles are heavily dependent on the two following sources:

http://cuetracker.net/ (around 300 links from articles)

Information about the author can be found at Big Interview: Ron Florax of CueTracker.net.

http://www.prosnookerblog.com/ (around 100 links from articles)

Information about the author can be found here.

Both of them seem to be fan-maintained and are primarily used to source statistical data, such as prize money and century counts, such as at Ronnie O'Sullivan and Shaun Murphy (snooker player).

Guidelines to consider:

WP:BLPSPS: Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.
WP:SPS: Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. 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.[7] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[9] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

A relevant opinion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard can be viewed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_169#Fansites as sources for sport stats?. Betty Logan (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I would specifically like to know if using these sites in the capacity they are regularly used for violates Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines? BLPSPS makes it clear that self-published websites should never be used as sources about living people, but this is not information that can be really considered controversial. Are there ever any exceptions to BLPSPS despite the very strong wording? Also, SPS appears to indicate that we should not use information published by individuals who are not considered authorities in the field by other secondary sources so presumably this rules out informed fans?

The reliance on these personal websites is mainly due to World Snooker not maintaining its own stat resource so we are largely dependent on broadcasters such as the BBC and Eurosport. The problem though is that they only publish while they are broadcasting tournaments so the stats can become dated. Also, while these sites are usually well run there are numerous discrepancies. For example, Stephen Hendry retired on 775 centuries but Cuetracker only have him on 772. Likewise, Cuetracker has Steve Davis on 355 centuries while ProSnookerBlog has him on 338 (for the record the BBC had him on 356 at the start of 2015). If you compare the lists there are quiet a few more, so it is not as if there is a uniform consensus on this information.

These links are proliferating as sources in the articles so I would like to have a formal ruling on the use of these sites. Betty Logan (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a previous incarnation I was a keen cricket statistician. I had some contact with Philip Bailey who was creating a database of cricket scores. This has now grown into http://cricketarchive.com, the most accurate source of cricket scorecards, widely referenced on Wikipedia. Essentially, it has, over a period, morphed from a self-published source into the holy grail for anyone wanting accurate cricket information. My point is that the distinction between a self-published source and a sound Wikipedia source is not as black-and-white as it might appear.

cuetracker is certainly not 100% accurate. I have had some correspondence with Ron Florax (the cuetracker man) and he has corrected some mistakes I found but recently he had not corrected a couple I informed him about (which is a bit discouraging for me). For instance, in the 1998 Masters semi-final here: http://cuetracker.net/Tournaments/Masters/1998/352 cuetracker has Doherty scoring two centuries when http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/snooker-williams-brushes-davis-aside-1143624.html says "This high-quality encounter produced breaks of 131, 80 and 122 from Hendry and 73, 56 and 46 from Doherty as the Scot led 4-3." There are problems for the other semi-final and the final too. Also see http://cuetracker.net/Tournaments/Masters/2001/291 O'Brien v Williams which has Williams making a century (and somehow winning the final frame) while http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2001/benson_and_hedges_masters/1159485.stm mentions "Assisted by breaks of 54, 88 and 102, O'Brien led 3-1 and 36-0" Other sites have mistakes too, of course.

Snooker (and indeed Golf - which I am also involved in) do not have anything like http://cricketarchive.com. We have Snooker Scene and The Billiard Player magazines but these are largely inaccessible to most of us. This essentially means that, if we don't use http://cuetracker.net or something similar, we are going to miss out on much interesting snooker content. We will be limited to fairly bland biographies and coverage of modern tournaments.What is there, to pick a random example, on the 1977 UK Championship (snooker) that's not self-published? Very little, I suspect. Does this mean that we should have a blank page? Maybe but disappointing.

Personally I'm more interested in whether statistical information is correct, rather than whether it's self-published. cuetracker is perhaps the best source of tournament scores at the moment, although short of perfection. Whether it will reach a higher standard remains to be seen.

Having looked around a bit on the internet, I would say that cuetracker is, by some margin, the most comprehensive. As I said above, it does have some mistakes but probably much less than there are on Wikipedia. For instance for the 1954 Professional Matchplay Championship, the unofficial World Championship, http://cuetracker.net/Tournaments/World-Championship/1954/959 includes 4 matches that are completely missing from Wikipedia. Wikipedia omits them because the sources used didn't have them either. So much credit must go cuetracker for correcting this long-standing error. Overall I must say that I'm very impressed with cuetracker as a source for tournament scores. The trouble comes when we use it for cumulative information (like career centuries) since the occasional error will lead to slightly incorrect totals. Of course, for the career centuries totals, we still have the issue of what tournaments count for this statistic. This doesn't seem to be defined anywhere. Again, it's interesting to compare to cricket where there are long-standing Variations in published cricket statistics due to differences in the definition of what is a first-class match. Did Jack Hobbs score 197 first-class centuries or 199. Depends who you talk to.Nigej (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As well as cuetracker.net and www.prosnookerblog.com we need to consider www.snooker.org (Hermund Årdalen), www.snookerdatabase.co.uk, www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk (aka Chris Turner's Snooker Archive), www.globalsnookercentre.co.uk (now defunct), www.snookerscene.co.uk (basically Cliver Everton) Nigej (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snookerscene.co.k is definitely a reliable source, since it is the online presence of Snooker Scene magazine which is effectively the snooker "bible". Chris Turner's Snooker Archive was self-published, but Chris Turner was the Eurosport statistician and maintained the site as a resource; that probably complies with WP:SPS which makes exceptions for "experts" who are published in their field. The others will require more digging. Betty Logan (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

www.snookerscene.co.uk seems to have given up any statistical information but we find http://web.archive.org/web/20130124071753/http://www.snookerscene.co.uk/page.php?id=36 on various articles, which misses several matches from the 1954 Professional Matchplay Championship as noted above. Chris Turner's Snooker Archive has plenty of errors: http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/misc1.html#DMGC has Sidney Smith runner-up in 1939/40, http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/misc1.html#Emp points column all wrong, http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/now.html all at Leicester Square Hall, http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/misc1.html#CofC has 1978 sponsor Daily Mail. It has a list of centuries here http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Centuries.htm but personally I'm doubtful that it's any more accurate the cuetracker and since the details are not available, there's no way of checking. Nigej (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Not acceptable WP:BLPSPS is very clear. If the player is alive, self published sources should not be used. While Nigej is correct that it is not a black and white distinction, I'm not convinced that prosnookerblog can be considered anything besides a self-published source. For cuetracker, I think an argument can be made as to its reliability. However it does not have editorial oversight which is a big problem and the reason why WP:BLP doesn't allow self-published sources or blogs and so should not be used. Wugapodes (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable. The risk, both regarding legal liability and harm to living persons, is too high, unless the SPS has a excellent (not just good) reputation within its field, and the statement being sourced is lightweight. "Pro Snooker Blog" is like any other SPS, and the same applies to "CueTracker". Esquivalience ^t 14:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Horace Lindrum

I have made a start at trying to get the Horace Lindrum article back to something vaguely encyclopedic. The unsuitable additions are probably from some family member trying to push his notability: see http://www.horacelindrum.com/ (authored by Jan Lindrum it seems) which seems to have a similar style. We clearly need to keep an eye on this page. Nigej (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft-class

I don't know if anyone was aware but I created Category:Draft-Class Snooker articles which was always available for use. In particular, Draft:Snooker commentary is a draft that is unclear and could work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I've been sitting on at least one such draft for years. Would be nice if someone else poked at it a bit. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cue sports nav box matter

Your (plural) input is requested at Template talk:Cue sports nav#Section order. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker updates needed at Glossary of cue sports terms

Could someone who keeps up with snooker and English billiards stats please check the entries "double century" and "crucible curse", and correct them if the records have changed, and update their {{as of}} tags, regardless, to have |2016|02 (in two places at the first entry)? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the "Crucible curse" date. Betty Logan (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy White world rankings

I've noticed that Jimmy_White#Performance_timeline doesn't have the same format as that I've seen for other snooker players. His end of season world rankings seem to be missing. Is there a reason? --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example for the purpose of comparison? It should be pretty easy to locate his rankings. Betty Logan (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Here's a randomly-chosen one: Mark_King_(snooker_player)#Performance_and_rankings_timeline --Dweller (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It probably just hasn't been added by whoever created the table. I don't know of any reason why they can't be included, since they are probably easy enough to locate. Betty Logan (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WPBSA and World Snooker Ltd

An anon radically changed the article World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association, allegedly to clear up confusion between the commercial entity World Snooker Ltd, and the WPBSA organization, but also deleting all controversy-related information and sources, and making other undiscussed changes. I've reverted that [3]. However, the anon may have a point worth looking into. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Probably the edit is much more accurate than the previous version.. Needs some digging around to find some suitable references. Nigej (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think World Snooker Limited was formed around the turn of the century when they decided to split the game's commercial interests from the governance. To pretend they are completely different organizations operating independently of each other is disingenuous to say the least. Even now you get Barry Hearn participating in WPBSA matters (such as matchfixing hearings) when technically he only owns shares in the WSA. The only reason they were reconfigured as two separate entities is so the players can't split from the game and take the broacasting contracts and sponsorship deals with them which was on the cards in the late 90s. Betty Logan (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope this gets clarified in the article. If they are only separate entities in a legal but not really operational sense, I would discourage forking into two articles. This kind of situation is common. E.g., in the US, nonprofit organisations of the 501(c)(3) classification ("charities" broadly) cannot engage in lobbying on electoral matters, only issue-based legislative/regulatory ones, so they very often fork off a "separate" organization to do the latter, registered as a lobbying organization (with a different tax code designation), and funnel funding to it. E.g., there's the ACLU and the ACLU Foundation, etc. We would not normally if ever cover these in separate articles. I could see splitting in this case if the main WPBSA article becomes unwieldy, or if more of a split between the two nominal groups develops. Unless/until, I would suggest just categorizing the redirect for World Snooker Ltd differently as needed, and making sure it goes to a section that 'splains things. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 03:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Grand Prix/World Open confusion

As I write this we have a complete and utter mess with many pages treating the World Grand Prix as an extension of the World Open and some not. The first thing to decide is whether it is an extension or a new tournament. I'm inclined to agree with User:Armbrust that it's a new tournament. We need to sort this out PDQ since it's an embarrassment at the moment.Nigej (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of things it appears to be an anonymous editor causing the chaos by redirecting pages. The World Grand Prix has a different name, a different sponsor, is held in a different country and has a completely different format to the World Open, so the question is why should it be treated as the same tournament?? I think this is simply the case of a single editor getting the wrong end of the stick. The two tournaments have nothing in common apart from the name being a mish-mash of "Grand prix" and "World Open". Betty Logan (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT The IP is claiming that they are using the same trophy. If this is true (i.e. the trophy has the names of the previous winners on it) then they have a pretty compelling argument. Betty Logan (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a move discussion at Talk:World_Open_(snooker)#Requested_move_11_March_2016. Betty Logan (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons

I was just looking at Category:Seasons in snooker and I noticed that the date format used for snooker seasons varies greatly from the format used for pretty much every other sport on the planet. Just look at 2015–16 Premier League or 2015–16 NBA season and you'll see what I mean. Is there any way we could get a bot to change all those titles? – Pee Jay 18:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just the season pages. We have some 200 pages with a / in the name. Rankings, ranking points, tournament names (eg European Tour 20...) Nigej (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, it's a big task, but if this project thinks it's worth it, it wouldn't be difficult to set up a bot to carry out all the moves automatically. – Pee Jay 12:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Ladies Billiards and Snooker Association

Is the WLBSA a separate organisation, or a division of WPBSA? I know it runs its own tournaments and such, but that's not necessarily enough for an article. If it's not independent (and their use of a near-identical logo suggests it's not), it should redirect to the WPBSA article. If it's independent of WPBSA, it should have a separate article anyway, since we don't put unrelated organisations in the same article. PS: Also needs a redirect from the unofficial but grammatically correct and expected World Ladies' Billiards and Snooker Association spelling (with possessive apostrophe), and from the acronym, and any former names, plus the short version in their logo. Also, they seem to be using a WPBSL acronym on the site, so the name may have changed. PPS: Either the resulting new article, or the (officially spelled) redirect should be categorized in Category:Women in cue sports; populating this new category is what brought this question to my attention. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 03:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be a completely independent organization until last season when it became a subsidiary of the WPBSA: http://www.wlbsl.com/single-post/2015/12/03/Restructure-For-World-Ladies-Snooker. Betty Logan (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]