This page is within the scope of WikiProject Snooker, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
snooker on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SnookerWikipedia:WikiProject SnookerTemplate:WikiProject SnookerSnooker articles
Recently I have spotted some differences in the treatment of 50+ break scores in frames during finals of tournaments: namely putting the break on the right of the frame score, which I will call it "the old way" (example:
2019 Tour Championship); and putting the break on the side of the player who made the break (example:
2024 German Masters), which I will call it "the new way".
From what I have seen, past tournament articles all used the old format, possibly due to relying websites such as snooker.org or cuetracker.net as unofficial sources for frame scores. The new format has only emerged for this season. Unfortunately, this has caused some inconsistencies between old and new articles.
Personally I would favour the old format because I don't think the new format is much of an improvement, and more importantly, changing the formats for the old articles to match the new format would be a hassle. However, I would like some consensus on this issue.
Ui56k (
talk)
16:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
As ever, we shouldn't worry too much about what we did in the past. The question is which is better? If equal then it's generally best to use the old style. Changing a few hundred "finals" with
WP:AWB is not a big job, honestly. I'm happy to do it if that's the consensus. Personally I'm in the "no big deal" category with this one. It does save a little space when there's an ambiguity about which player made the break(s): now it's (56) before and (51) after, whereas previously it was (O'Sullivan 56, Trump 51) afterwards.
Nigej (
talk)
16:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I think what you're calling the "new way" is clearer for readers and saves space. Also, it lines up with the way the breaks and scores are displayed by WST on their live scoring pages. compare the update I just did for the
Welsh Open with
this. Alan (
talk)
17:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
In this particular case there is no space saving, but in many cases there is. Anyway, my preference is for the "new way". I'm interested to know what others think, and am happy to go with the consensus. Alan (
talk)
18:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
WST, snooker.org and cuetracker all report 50+ breaks. Whether we need the "count" below is a good question. Personally I can do without it. Does anyone talk about x making n 50 breaks in the final?
Nigej (
talk)
19:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
But you wouldn't know in which frame they made the century breaks, though. I'm neutral towards removing the 50+ break count row, but I'd say keep the century break row and 50+ breaks in parentheses in frame scores.
AmethystZhou (
talk)
21:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The question asked above by
Nigej: "Does anyone talk about x making n 50 breaks in the final?" is a valid one. I don't think that 50+ breaks are of any interest to most readers, but centuries probably are. So why not just include centuries, and since there can only be one century per frame, then the left/right argument becomes moot. So the final for the
Welsh Open would look like this:
I agree with this - I think 50+ breaks are not required for the 'casual' reader and anyone with a deeper interest in snooker will be able to find 50+ breaks elsewhere (whether that is at the World Snooker Tour, Snooker.org or Cuetracker sites) if they really want to know.
Steveflan (
talk)
10:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, Snooker Scene (Clive Everton era at least) recorded all breaks above 50 with the break in parenthesis after the frame score for the individual player. So the 2024 Welsh Open final would be:
Honestly it depends on how much information one wants to convey. The 50+ break count indicates how well a player is breakbuilding and hence playing. On the other hand, 50 is kind of an arbitrary cut-off point as one would usually need at least a 60+ break to clinch a frame in 1 visit. And I suppose non-casuals can just refer to cuetracker for such information.--
Ui56k (
talk)
10:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It may relate to cricket, where a
half century (ie 50) was traditionally regarded as a good achievement and the number of those was reported in a player's career stats. Indeed, the crowd applauded the achievement. In modern snooker no one even notes when a break reaches 50. The only real target is the snookers required stage. As such I'd be quite keen on deleting all the stuff on 50+ breaks (at least in the last 50 years or so) from the "final" section. I'd be keen to retain the centuries. Of course, the text can mention significant breaks of any size.
Nigej (
talk)
12:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Nigej: The template that we are using for the World Championship still has a "50+ breaks" row at the bottom, and I (and others) have been putting in the 50+ breaks as we have done in previous years. I don't mind this, since the World Championship is a one-off anyway. What do you (and others) think? Alan (
talk)
07:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not a big deal for me. As you say, the World Championship is a one-off in many ways. Personally I'd probably be inclined to get rid of the 50-99 breaks since they just add clutter to the table for little benefit. Seems to me there's not much talk about them anyway and this level of detail is perhaps best left to snooker.org/cuetracker.
Nigej (
talk)
07:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
But if you change the template, it might screw up all the previous tournaments that use it. Probably best left alone. Alan (
talk)
07:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually, we only changed the template a few years back (2019 if I remember rightly when I tried to get the first FA for
2018 World Snooker Championship through). We could easily change the template to only include if the 50+ exists then show, or we could work out some sort of regex to change the template across all of our articles.
Before this discussion peters out, I'd like to propose that we adopt the idea above that we remove the 50-99 breaks from the frame-by-frame scores in the "final" section and also remove the "50+ breaks" line in that section. The logic behind this is that the 50-99 breaks are not very important to our readers and just clutter-up the section. Under this proposal, information on 100+ breaks would remain as it is now.
Nigej (
talk)
15:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree, the 50+ breaks just adds clutter in most cases and makes the frame score hard to read. However, it perhaps is ironically useful for the
2024 Players Championship to illustrate the poor play from both players, with Allen only making two 50+ breaks in the whole match. How about if we don't include 50+ breaks in parentheses, but keep the tally for both 50+ and 100+?
AmethystZhou (
talk)
00:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I've removed these for the ranking events for the current season, to see if I get any complaints. Slight glitch with someone using a tab instead of a space. Also some centuries are before and some after the frame scores, but I've left those for now, won't affect earlier seasons.
Nigej (
talk)
15:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Brilliant! I've just sorted out the before and after centuries, and added frames for highest breaks. All events for this season are now done. Alan (
talk)
13:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A 1993 entry was added to the
World Mixed Doubles page, and I recently discovered that apparently there were more mixed doubles events. However, they seem to be non-professional:
Metro article by Phil Haigh mentions four of them in the past, including one in 2008 with Neil Robertson and Reanne Evans playing. The 2022 and 2024 events are "professional" events organized by WST, but would the 1991 and 1993 events count as "professional"? If not, maybe we should split the table into two sections. Does anyone have more info on these?
AmethystZhou (
talk)
05:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
AmethystZhou the 1991 event was promoted by Barry Hearn as part of his deal with the
WLBSA - Snooker Scene for July 1990 says he "hopes to promote [it] with the joint sanction of the WLBSA and WPBSA". It looks from the Tunbridge Wells Courier clipping like the 1993 one was a successor to the 1991 event. (Hendry and Hillyard v John Parrott and Karen Corr, and Davis and Fisher v Jimmy White and Tessa Davidson were shown on Eurosport in September 1993, so looks like it was a tournament rather than a single match.) The four mixed doubles title referred to in the Metro article are probably the ones run by the WLBSA - they are listed in the Team finals section of the
Reanne Evans article. There are some press references to Allison Fisher winning three mixed doubles titles - I guess these are the 1991 and 1993 events, plus the one at
1991 World Masters. Regards,
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
11:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for finding the information! I don't have access to the Snooker Scene magazine so perhaps someone else can add those to the Mixed Doubles page.
AmethystZhou (
talk)
07:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Gratuitous tinkering and introducing errors
I'm usually fairly careful when writing prose for snooker articles, both in terms of grammar and style, and also factual accuracy. But there are a couple of recent editors (and yes, we all know who they are) who seemingly aren't happy unless they've rewritten and tinkered with every single sentence contributed by others, often introducing errors in the process.
E.g., in the
2024 World Snooker Championship article, I wrote that Bai Yulu "forced a
re-spotted black in the 17th frame after requiring two snookers, but Kendrick potted the black to win 10–7". This was changed to "forced a
re-spotted black in the 17th frame after acquiring
foul points from two
snookers, but Kendrick potted the black to win 10–7". However, the source article notes that "Kendrick hit the black when escaping a snooker on the last red and let Bai back in to force a re-spot." In short, Bai didn't acquire "foul points from two snookers" but obtained 7 points from one snooker when her opponent hit the black, which were enough to tie.
I added a photograph of Fergal O'Brien with the caption "Irish player
Fergal O'Brien(pictured) retired after his 8–10 defeat to
Mostafa Dorgham. O'Brien had played on the professional tour since 1991." The photo (of course) had to be changed to a different photo, and the caption (of course) rewritten to "After his 8–10 defeat to
Mostafa Dorgham, Irish player
Fergal O'Brien(pictured) retired from the professional tour, which he was a part of since 1991." Why? No rationale given for the changes, no actual improvements made to either the image or the prose — it's just endless, gratuitous tinkering driven by a seeming obliviousness to the efforts of others and a stubborn refusal to leave well enough alone.
I could go on at length about all the changes (none of them constructive) made to just one paragraph, and all the errors introduced therein — "
Michael Holt lost 6–10 to
Xing Zihao" was changed to "he wad defeated 6–10 by
Xing Zihao" — and material deleted without explanation. But the wider question is this: what's the point in contributing to articles anymore, only to deal with incessant meddling that only degrades the quality of articles? There's no point in engaging in time-consuming efforts to fix issues, only to deal with even more meddling in return. This is all time that could be invested in improving articles. Constructive editing is always welcome, of course, but nothing about any of this is constructive.
HurricaneHiggins (
talk)
09:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Fwiw, I think "
Fergal O'Brien (pictured), a professional since 1991, retired following a 8–10 loss
Mostafa Dorgham." As it gives a reason upfront (his career length and retirement) why we care, and then the details of why.
Whilst it might be hard to see your hard work be changed, it does come a bit with the nature of being on a callaborative encyclopedia.
I made the account in 2011 but only started editing last year, maybe I still don't quite get how one should contribute to Wikipedia exactly. But I see editors (including yourself) come in to an article and make these type of changes often, sometimes not without introducing some small errors such as typos. Also often with minimal discussion or explanation as to the rationale behind why they think it's an improvement. The bottom line here, however, is they are trying to improve an article. Do you honestly think nothing about my edits is constructive?
I find it quite insulting to declare others' good faith efforts as "incessant meddling". I could say the same when others "tinker" with what I have contributed, but I won't, because that's what comes with a collaborative process. Not to mention just because my edit is the last one doesn't mean I own the content and it cannot be changed.
AmethystZhou (
talk)
06:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
HurricaneHiggins: You say "and yes, we all know who they are". Well I for one have no idea who you are referring to. If you are accusing someone of something, I think you should tell them directly. If you are referring to me, then say so. Alan (
talk)
14:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
...also, I tend not to edit article prose much, since I'm not very good at it. I concentrate on getting the numbers right in the scores and the century breaks, and correcting errors where I find them. You (
HurricaneHiggins) seem to have scared everyone off with your post, since nobody has edited or added to the prose in the
World Championship for a couple of days. Alan (
talk)
07:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Eh? I'm not trying to "scare off" anyone from making contributions — I'm expressing frustration at having repeatedly seen my own contributions gratuitously rewritten for no good reason, in a manner that often degrades the prose and introduces errors. This has been going on regularly for months now. I see no point in spending my valuable time contributing to articles, only to have that material entirely rewritten within hours, without any effort to explain why the changes were deemed necessary. That is neither a collaborative nor a collegial way to approach the process. So I'll be taking a backseat from now on — I'll likely spend more time watching snooker and much less writing about it. Enjoy the World Championship.
HurricaneHiggins (
talk)
12:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Edit summaries
This is a general request to all editors: Please, when making an edit, put something in the
edit summary line to indicate what the edit is for. This is particularly helpful with regard to adding century breaks, especially when there are a number of matches in progress at the same time. Just the name of the player and the score will do. This then makes the "Revision history" page a useful "blow-by-blow" history without having to look at each individual edit, and helps to keep track of the centuries. Also, just putting "ce" or the like in the edit summary line is not very helpful. A little more detail please. Alan (
talk)
18:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Season infobox
Did something change recently at a source level with the season infobox? Up until recently, on the mobile skin on en.m.wikipedia.org, the season infobox has been displayed normally as it would on desktop. As of now though, it now looks
like this (aka the infobox is now stretched across the full width of the page. This obviously makes it difficult to read due to the ridiculous amount of whitespace, which doesn’t sound like it was intended, but i can’t find any recent edits to the template itself that would cause this. —
CitroenLover (
talk)
21:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This seems to be extending to various infoboxes, including ones that have nothing to do with the snooker project, my guess is thar someone changed some css at site level. —
CitroenLover (
talk)
21:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Template:Infobox snooker player/rankings
I was recently taking a look at the
rankings parameter on another one of our projects, and I was wondering how we actually use this. My worry is that we now have 11 other sites that have their own (mostly out of date) versions of this page.
Is there a suitable way we could move this information to WikiData instead? How is this generated? I could talk to someone who knows WikiData to see if we could script it. Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)22:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The answer is that I don't know. Since the image is presumably stored in commons rather than the English wikipedia, it's perhaps a double redirect issue
WP:2R. These don't generally work.
Nigej (
talk)
12:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, redirects don't work like that when the item isn't held on Wikipedia. I've requested a name change on Commons, which is what will need to happen. Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)12:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That's a shame. We just need to be careful not to paste in any "curlies" from quotations in sources, in case somebody does a search/replace. Alternatively, we could get a different image of Fergal. Alan (
talk)
06:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Good Topics/working list
Hi! This probably won't be of interest to everyone, but if you weren't aware, I keep a track of certain topics of articles to eventually do a push towards the
Good and Featured Topics status.
Would anyone be interested if I moved parts of this page out of my userspace (specifically the tables and the like) and into the project space to keep track of how we are getting on? I know not everyone cares about the quality assessment (which I get), but the more I think about it, the more selfish I seem keeping a project based table in my own userspace. I would still update it and the like though, unless you wanted to help. Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)11:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Dark mode support for performance and ranking timelines
These tables have two main issues when shown in dark mode:
The explicitly defined background color for the tournament column can't be changed by darkmode. This is easily fixed by removing the color, setting the boxes as row headers, and setting the plainrowheaders class for the table (
example). This causes the background color to change in day theme from #EFEFEF to #EAECF0, but this is not a noticeable difference.
The explicitly defined text color #555 can't be changed either. This problem is a little more difficult to fix. I see three possible approaches:
Remove it, rendering that text in standard black instead (and standard white in night theme). This is easy, but loses the styling this project prefers.
Convert the tables to a template and set the night mode color with TemplateStyles. This keeps the styling but is some work.
Throw the skin-invert class at the problem (which uses a CSS filter to invert the colors) This fixes the issue and keeps (a form of) the styling in dark mode, but causes the table to appear slightly different from most tables and would take some effort (and a massive increase in page size) to prevent the other colors (green, orange, etc.) from looking weird. This is slightly easier than #2.
I have AWB access, but I'm not super up on what the regex would be to make that sort of change (all in one go at least). I can take a look, but might take me a bit.
I just did #555555 --> var(--color-subtle, #54595D) and \|style="background:#EFEFEF;" --> !scope="row" for that page. This probably wouldn't be safe to run on a full page though, and I don't believe AWB has any easy way to edit a section. Thinking...
Snowmanonahoe (
talk·contribs·typos)
19:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Does anyone know what has happened to all the infoboxes? They have all changed visually and (IMO) now look awful. Alan (
talk)
10:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Short answer: Bug.
Long answer: Responsive Vector 2022 is out, the idea is to make Vector 2022 more usable on mobile... I think. Not sure. It's supposed to apply Minerva (i.e. mobile) styling at small resolutions but it's doing it at all resolutions instead.
Snowmanonahoe (
talk·contribs·typos)
11:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
For those unaware, Cazoo entered administration officially earlier this month. While WST still continues to list Cazoo as a principal partner of the tour, and as a sponsor of the World Championship, I doubt that this will remain, as I'm sure the administrators will be trying to make the business meaningful [even though the writing is on the wall, figuratively, for the brand as a whole]. Based on this, how do we want to approach this situation regards to how everything is written on the
2025 World Snooker Championship page? Do we remove all references to Cazoo being sponsor of this event, until we're given confirmation by WST that they are remaining as sponsor for this edition, or place a note somewhere to say that this is in doubt due to its administration? --
CitroenLover (
talk)
19:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Neither. If there are sources (especially the official ones) that say they are sponsoring the event, then we should also say that. We are not here to theory out what is happening. Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)19:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The only source suggesting they are is a couple of static pages (ie the tickets and tournament pages on WST's website) which can have this label changed at any time and without warning. I don't think a piece of text on a very generic page about a tournament counts as a meaningful source that they are going to be a sponsor: remember that last years' UK Championship had no sponsor mentioned until the eleventh hour when it became MrQ, but if a piece of text on a generic page constitutes a meaningful source, I guess it needs to remain... despite the unlikeliness of Cazoo sponsoring anything lol. --
CitroenLover (
talk)
19:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply