Snooker Project‑class

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 Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Resolved

 – Moved to article's talk page.

I note it says in ProjectSnooker that an article on the IBSF World Snooker Championship (which was called the World Amateur Championship until about the mid-90s) is being sought.

I have had the results from this tournament for a while and am looking to publish them somewhere on the internet for reference as they don't seem to be anywhere else, even on the IBSF's own site. I thought about asking them or possibly sites including WWWSnooker or Global Snooker Centre but I've not asked anyone yet - too busy).

So, at the risk of looking in need of getting out more and/or getting flamed, here they (hopefully) are!

Ralph (scottripple@aol.com)

Eek, what a mess, don't have time to clean it up now into a more readable/attractive format. This was two Miscrosoft Word files and it came out looking even worse than this when I included all the Group Stage tables! So I've taken the Group stages out (except for the earliest years) and just left the knockout stage results. If anyone wants the group tables as well please e-mail me and I can send them the Word files as an attachment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.21.166 ( talk) 18:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this is that all results have to be referenced so they can't be added to the main article. However this is interesting information and shouldn't be lost, so I propose transfering these results to the IBSF discussion page so at least they will be stored. If references are found at a later date then the results can be simply tranferred into the main article. It may be worth contacting Global Snooker because it follows the amateur scene quite closely and seeing if they want the info for their archives. If they add it then that will give us a reference. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think first we should make an overall article to the IBSF World Snooker Championship. ( This can be used as reference]. Armbrust ( talk) 19:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; making templates for this stuff is jumping the gun. We need a well-developed article first. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

User:Koavf changed the format from "Snooker season xxxx/xxxx" to "Snooker season xxxx-xx". Unfortunetly i can't revert it. So i like to know what you're opinion is. Armbrust ( talk) 09:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article was deleted

Could someone have a look at Midlands University Snooker Championship and help determine if this article might be able to meet notability guidelines.-- RadioFan ( talk) 16:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's not notable. Armbrust ( talk) 17:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Armbrust. The key to notability is if you can source it with reliable sources, and student newspapers aren't reliable sources. If you can find references to it in the mainstream press, or one of the accepted snooker websitse such as IBSF or Global Snooker then its notability would be established. Betty Logan ( talk) 22:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed this article for deletion. The discussion can be found there: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midlands University Snooker Championship Armbrust ( talk) 00:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Created as a stub.

I've created a stub article, with one source, at IBSF World Snooker Championship. It badly needs work, but at least its there. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Portal was updated on 7 February 2010.

Portal:Snooker hasn't been significantly updated since May 2009. We need to come up with a viable plan for keeping it updated at least monthly, or just MfD the whole mess as an interesting but failed experiment. Can someone adopt this as their pet project, and find one or more backup people to keep it updated if the original "adopter" goes on wikibreak for an extended time? — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I could update it, if you give me some advice how to do it. Armbrust ( talk) 01:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

URGENT: Update Portal:Snooker/Snooker news

This needs an update right now from someone with their pulse on what's going on. Need at least monthly updates too. See Portal:Sports' version of this page - there is some way to get automatic news updates on a topic from WikiNews. Not sure they have a snooker category. Wouldn't hurt to look. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It is updated. Armbrust ( talk) 01:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

I have recently created the Wikipedia article "Nigel Gilbert". Prof. Gilbert is a researcher pioneer in social simulation, relevant in several fields. However, it overlaps with your snooker player "Nigel Gilbert" (whose article was deleted previously). Considering the percentage of pages concerning one and the other in Google:

• "Nigel Gilbert" snooker -> 176 results
• "Nigel Gilbert" simulation OR sociology -> 9,500 results

I would recommend the following procedure:

• Creation of the Nigel Gilbert article for Prof. Gilbert (already done).
• When you want to create "your Nigel Gilbert" article, do it under the name "Nigel Gilbert (snooker player)". If you do create it, the following line should be added to the current Nigel Gilbert article:
  This page is about the sociologist. For the snooker player, see Nigel Gilbert (snooker player).
  (check the Robert Axelrod article).
• Regardless of your choice of creating such article or not, it would be recommended that you modify all the links to "Nigel Gilbert" in the WikiProject Snooker to "Nigel Gilbert (snooker player)", listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Nigel_Gilbert

-- Samer.hc ( talk) 23:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have changed all links for the snooker player from Nigel Gilbert to Nigel Gilbert. Armbrust ( talk) 11:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – All tournament article have the same format.

This random hodgepodge of articles that are sometimes in the form "YYYY Event Name" and sometimes "Event Name YYYY" has to stop. It is getting confusing and annoying even from the editing side, much less the hapless reader side. I propose that the format "YYYY Event Name" be adopted, as vastly more common among sports (and other, e.g. music) event article names across Wikipedia, and as more natural English. I also propose that "Event Name YYYY" exist as a redirect for every such article. This would necessitate the renaming of some articles (which in turn will necessitate the speedy deletion of some existing redirs so that articles can be moved, unless an admin participant of this project wants to do all the moving).

Please either support or oppose. If another format is preferred by someone, it should be in a new section, or we'll probably get confused about who is supporting what exactly. In the end I don't care all that much about the format ("Event Name (YYYY)" would be okay, too), just that we pick a consistent one before I pull any more of my hair out. :-) — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support, as nominator. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support, actually made it. Armbrust ( talk) 18:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: The idea of it being a formal proposal was to gain consensus on it, not force it one way or the other. Some other related issues remain open such as the snooker season articles, and I think there's one on cue sports at the Asian games, which also use the year-last format (they are not entirely alone though - one of the reason I'd intended a discussion here, rather than just moving everything to my preferred order. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Moved to infobox's talk page.

Yet again I've had to revert an edit that changed nationality from "Northern Irish" to "British" on the Alex Higgins article: [1]. Referring to this field as 'nationality' is a constant source of confusion for editors who are not familiar with snooker, since they confuse the term with legal citizenship. I've suggested before we simply change Nationality to Country to remove the confusion since "Country" carries no legal connotation and will make it distinct from legal nationality. Since Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England are all legally countries then there can be no dispute with using the national divisions for which the players represent. Does anyone else have strong views either for or against this suggestion? Betty Logan ( talk) 02:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Support basic idea, but "country" doesn't work since that grammatically requires "Northern Ireland", not "Northern Irish", which would require changing every single snooker player infobox to use noun instead of adjective. However, I advocate that change anyway, since it is more appropriate to ID the sporting nationality with reference to the country as a country, not with reference to the person as being somehow indelibly "of" that country, on a personal level (which may or may not be the case for any given person). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I did wonder about the grammatical implications, but even if the change went ahead it would still be clear what it meant and I think it's the sort of thing that would naturally correct itself anyway. We could even make the correction ourselves whenever we update the articles. We could do with a couple more opinions though. An anonymous editor is persisting with making Alex Higgins British, so it would be good if we could neutralise this once and for all. Betty Logan ( talk) 04:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In the interim, I've changed the field to make its purpose clearer. The way I did this causes the parameter name to line-wrap, which may not be ideal. The link to the FIFA country list was the main idea. Honestly, I would not want to go around changing all of these things article by article unless we were going to overhaul the entire thing, to use standard infobox code, lower-case parameter names like every other i'box on the system, and other cleanup, and do it entirely programmatically, with a bot or a "will not stop until I'm done" AWB spree (the later of which would be very tedious and take many, many borning hours).

Maybe an alternative soultion would be to add a citizenship field into the infobox. That way the Northern Ireland players could be given British citizenship but still keep the Northern Ireland nationality for snooker purposes. It might be a sufficient compromise, and would mean we only have to make changes on articles where there are problems. Betty Logan ( talk) 05:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: Actually, I've just implemented this in code and updated the template's documentation. The original |Nationality= will still work, but is no longer mentioned, in favor of |Sport country=. If people don't like it they can futz with it or revert it. As far as I can tell, the only three active editors on snooker any longer are you, mean and Armbrust (who is online right now and has also been edting that template but did not seem to object to that change, so far, though he did object to something else, so he's clearly paying attention). All that said, I still think the entire thing needs to be replaced by a more standard-coded and standard-behaving infobox. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 06:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

The International Open Series pro-am tour, a.k.a. Pontin's International Open Series, now has a stub article. The tour was referred to in multiple articles, so I put very, very skeletal info into a page and linked to it from them. Has no sources. Some of the more active snooker editors should probably flesh it out a bit. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Have found 2 sources. Am editing as we "speak". Will post update when done. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Done editing for now if anyone else wants to work on it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Marking topic "Resolved" since that article has its own talk page for further discussion. Armbrust ( talk) 19:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Just a pointer, to Talk:Snooker commentary#What a shame.

My friend and I were just chatting about his recent discussion point on the Snooker commentary page... No one has yet replied, but I do think he (and Poolktis) has a point. I thought it more sage to hunt this page out and just direct more wily and discerning snooker fans to the discussion. Cheers, Stav. (PS I'm not a Wikipedian, don't know how to direct you to the page... it's called Snooker commentary and is largely defunct as it stands, without the richness that it once had.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.89.33 ( talk) 11:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is Snooker commentary, the lamented material is visible in this diff, and the discussion is at Talk:Snooker commentary#What a shame. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 16:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Hey folks,

So there are some very long and convoluted tables at Stephen Hendry#Performance timeline and Ronnie O'Sullivan#Performance timeline which are either forcing horizontal wrap on most screen resolutions already or will in a couple of years at most. I transposed the rows and columsn in both, here and here; these were undone without summary. Considering that it is more likely (i.e. inevitable) that the tables will expand horizontally over time in the old format, I think transposing was appropriate here (and in Hendry's case a complete no-brainer). Sadly the reverting editor has vowed to edit war over it, so I've taken it here for further input. Comments? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Armbrust wasn't edit-warring he simply put the tables back to the format that is used across the snooker project. Your alterations made the tables inconsistent with the tables on the other articles. Whichever format is decided upon they should be consistent across all the articles. I'm not saying your point isn't a valid one, since you are correct that certainly with the "triple crown" tables they will expand chronologically but we could do with some more opinions first. I've opened Hendry's table in three browsers - IE, Firefox, Opera - and there doesn't seem to be any wrapping problems, but obviously that isn't exhaustive and if people want to print the articles out it could cause problems. Personally I'm in favour of adopting your change but Armbrust may have good reasons for not wanting to change them. I don't think we have a standard template for the tournament table either so it would mean manually altering each article, so if we are going to do that maybe we should think about creating one. Betty Logan ( talk) 07:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The current format should never have been chosen as it is obvious that using the horizontal axis for years will inevitably result in scrolling as time passes; not to mention that it makes the task of adding each new year significantly more complicated by requiring multiple table rows to be edited. The wrapping problem is already visible to me on a 1280x1024 display and will be worse for people on 1024x768. Inconsistency can be changed over time by editing other articles; it seems more sensible to gradually convert articles to the new format than to insist that they all be done at once (which is a lot of work). IMO it is more important that articles do not have basic and obvious layout problems than that they are perfectly consistent with one another at a give time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As there's been no further reply here, I'll be restoring the transposed tables on my next pass. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm against the transposed tables (especialy if there are more tournaments added). They look ugly, and it would be only a temporaly solution. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is clear support for altering the format they should be left as they are. The decision should be taken by the editors who maintain the tables and work with them week-to-week. If people haven't responded it may well be that they don't know about the discussion. I would recommend contacting the editors that regularly update the tables to notify them about this discussion to get their opinion. Betty Logan ( talk) 13:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Editors do not get a veto over content they happen to watch over regularly, but if you happen to know who they are then feel free to ping them for input. Armbrust's assertion that the change is "ugly and temporaly" is flat-out false on the Hendry article (it would take the addition of ten or fifteen new tournaments to make the next format stretch horizontally, while it already does so on the current layout); whether the change would be "temporaly" or not on the O'Sullivan one, it is the case that it is far more "temporaly" that the current layout will work because every single new year adds a new column to the end. It is more likely that there will be a new year next year than that there will be a new tournament. "Clear support" simply means that there is a compelling argument either way; this isn't a show of hands. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

New tournaments can happen every year. The table with more tournaments should be unchanged, and the tables with only the major tournaments should be split into more tables (for example see: Gary Player#Results timeline). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's bad form for tables to go off the page horizontally. Armbrust is simply pointing out that your solution won't actually prevent this in the case of some of the tables as more tournaments are added. The format on the Gary Player example looks like a viable alternative to me, it ensures that the tables won't go off the sides regardless of how many tournaments and years there are. Would you have any objections to that format being used on the snooker articles? Betty Logan ( talk) 14:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I rather think that the Gary Player article makes my point for me. Merging and transposing those tables would result in a single table which would grow vertically by year and would require the number of included tournaments to quadruple before there were width problems. I cannot see any logic behind the current layout. Of the three articles being discussed now (Hendry, O'Sullivan, Player) the vertical format makes far more sense on at least two. I'm prepared to accept that neither layout is optimal in the O'Sullivan article and that it may require more thought. However, the other two should be vertical. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is even worse with Steve Davis. If there's no better reason not to transpose the worst offenders than "it could hypothetically cause problems if a dozen more tournaments were added" then I'll be changing the Davis and Hendry articles next week (and probably the Gary Player one too, though that's outwith the snooker project's purview). I'll leave the O'Sullivan article as there are evidently problems both ways. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the better solution would be to split the tables into more tables. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had a tinker with the Steve Davis timeline. I've based it on the Gary Player timeline but I've done it so that each table corresponds to a full decade. You can see it here: User:Betty_Logan/Sandbox. I think something along these lines will be best. Betty Logan ( talk) 17:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be like this. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, how on Earth is that a better solution than the vertical format? While it solves the horizontal scrollbar issue for an arbitrary screen resolution, it breaks the table entirely for users with screen readers. I cannot see a single reason for that format. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

May update

As nobody has seen fit to reply in three months, I'm going to consider this closed in favour of the new vertical format. Right now this has a severely detrimental impact on the presentation of the most high-profile biographies in the snooker project. I would not expect to be summarily reverted. 62.56.108.155 ( talk) 16:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And i am seen this closed without consensus for the vertical format. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is determined by discussion. You haven't responded to my previous comment, and you do not have a veto over the result. If this needs to go to an RfC then so be it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the modification, what was made on the Steve Davis article is a better solution. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The scrollbar table on the Davis article seems like a good solution to me. Betty Logan ( talk) 20:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that it's the best solution, but in the name of compromise I'm willing to go for it. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article was corrected

There are inconsistency in the article Pro Challenge Series 2009/2010 – Event 2 : 1th is not the truth. It may be 1st or it may be 4th, 5th ... It is possible that the number is wrong, or the “th” is wrong. I do not know what of that is wrong or true. Please check it. -- Diwas ( talk) 12:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Corrected, but please next time use the articles talk page. Armbrust ( talk) 13:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You are thinking there are more of those errors in snooker articles? Then the best way can be you search all snooker articles for 1th, 2th and 3th. There are many numbers in sports and anyone thinks to correct a typo, but he is completing a former error or vandalism. And nobody is able to check all numbers. It may be a typo of the th or a typo of the number, or it may be vandalism. -- Diwas ( talk) 14:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No. I mean't if you find there is a problem with one article, then you should discuss it on its own talk page (not on the projects talk page). For example for Pro Challenge Series 2009/2010 – Event 2 you should use Talk:Pro Challenge Series 2009/2010 – Event 2. Armbrust ( talk) 14:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I will do so, thank you very much. -- Diwas ( talk) 15:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Just a note.

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 03:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – That subst doesn't work in <ref> ... </ref> is an issue for the whole encyclopedia, not just this project.

If you look at reference 4 on Ronnie O'Sullivan something is wrong with the retrieval date: Retrieved {{subst:CurrentYYYYMMDD}}. I haven't a clue how to fix it so would appreciate if someone had a look at it. Betty Logan ( talk) 22:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It works if you subst it. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Subst doesn't work inside <ref>...</ref>. Just put the date in manually. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Change made on all relevant articles.

{{ WP Biography}} has changed, such that the |priority= parameter is now ignored; the project now assesses via taskforces only, so all snooker bios need to have {{ WP Biography|...|priority=Something}} changed to {{ WP Biography|...|sports-priority=Something}}

Big fun, I know. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Have changed it on every categorized snooker-related biography talk page. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That was fast. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – It is referenced

See Talk:Snooker world rankings#Anon's unsourced changes look significant. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's right. Reference to it was added by Betty Logan. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

I don't know if you are aware of this Help:Footnotes#List-defined_references, but it seems we can now put all the references in the reference section as opposed to the middle of the article. It seems like a good idea to me, because when you are proof-reading it's almost impossible if you have a load of references in the middle of the text. Also, some editors don't understand the code and make edits that corrupt the reference code. Here's an example of how the source code looks: [2]

Another advantage is that when you want to use a reference again in the article you either have to find its name, or find it and name it, so having all the references grouped together could make editing easier. Similarly, you can also get situations where someone removes text and an accompanying reference not realising the reference is also used elsewhere in the article, so having references defined separately to the text could offer a few practical benefits. Can anyone think of any disadvantage to this? Betty Logan ( talk) 20:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

About darned time. I was wondering if that would ever get fixed. I would test it first in something major, like Ronnie O'Sullivan before making the change everywhere. There may be issues we're not aware of, but a major article like that would probably bring them out. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've tried it out in snooker player nicknames which had just under a hundred references embedded in table code which made the code look horrendous. I guess editors will probably still add references to the article text but maybe with something like a player profile with just a few references that isn't a problem, but it's certainly a benefit in table structures. Betty Logan ( talk) 00:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The result of the AfD was delete.

Channel Island Snooker Championship has been proposed for deletion. Would someone with the relevant topical expertise care to visit the articles for deletion discussion and make an argument for its notability, or otherwise? Thanks. - DustFormsWords ( talk) 03:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Why do the season's have 2004/2005, which is a violation of policy, and I believe needs to be changed throughout Snooker Project articles in order to be in compliance! It needs to be 2004–05 to be in compliance. BLUE _DOG ^TN 01:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Because the major snooker sources use this format. And the policy says only "avoid" the use of slash charaters in titles, and it doesn't says, that it's forbiden. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As Armbrust points out the snooker article use the formalism that is used by the game. Altering the titles of the season articles from their proper titles would violate WP:NPOV. Betty Logan ( talk) 13:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, provide the sources for them instead of just saying so because wikipedia must adhere to WP:V not truth to be the rule! BLUE _DOG ^TN 21:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and there are many more. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Then, why instead if 2008/2009, why not do it like they do it for all sports that carry-over for seasons and make it 2008/09 instead, which will look way better than the first. BLUE _DOG ^TN 00:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it looks like "September 2008" to the vast majority of readers. Please stop haranguing this particular project about this. If you want to change the way sports seasons are represented in text, take the matter up at WT:SPORT, and if you gain consensus there, see if WT:MOSNUM is interested in making it officially part of the Manual of Style. Otherwise, like every other editorial decision not covered by explicit rules, the matter is entirely up to consensus editorial discretion among the editors working on a particular article or set of articles. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Just a note.

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>> Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker/Archive 4/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Okay, so where is it? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

smccandlish, My apologies, the link was wrong, it is fixed now. thanks for checking. I like you signature :)

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker/Archive 4/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 23:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No consenus to delete.

Have nominated the Maria Catalano artice for AfD. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article was deleted.

Have nominated the Mitchell Mann artice for AfD. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article was deleted.

Have nominated the Greg Casey artice for AfD. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Just a note.

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

This caused a bit of controversy during the world championship, and we really need some concrete guidelines that people can be referred to. My suggestion is we get as many opinions on this as possible before the new season starts and just go with the most popular preference. Betty Logan ( talk) 21:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A reminder to all members of this project. Small interest group have no sway over wider WP policy - see WP:CONLIMITED Leaky Caldron 21:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

From the three opinions we have so far we seem to agree that the match data will not "go live" until the match is concluded. Obviously three opinions don't make a consensus, so we'll keep this discussion ongoing at least until the new season starts. Betty Logan ( talk) 05:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Match scores

The point of contention is should the match scores be allowed to be updated after each frame a'la a live updating service (i.e. 1-0, 2-0, 2-1 etc), or should they be left until the session or match is completed? My personal preference would be to record the result at the end of each match. The purpose of the result tables is to record the results of the match and Wikipedia is not a score update service. By recording a 2-1 score in the result box we technically make the article incorrect because that is just the score, it is not the result of the match! A link to live score updating could be provided on the article for people who wish to monitor the score in progress. I favour adding the result after the match is completed rather than the session since we don't actually record individual session scores, so recording the session score in the result box also technically makes the article incorrect since the result will have to be altered after the next session. Betty Logan ( talk) 21:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

totally agree. NOTHING should be added until the end of the match per wp:notnews - "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information". Live frame scores and frame points are breaking news. It was being treated differently from other information by (a) inserting it immediately and (b) italicizing it. Leaky Caldron 21:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Frame scores

The second source of contention was the addition of frame scores to the final box after each frame (i.e. 69-59, 147-0, 101-4). Some editors were under the impression that if we don't update the match scores until after the session the frame scores shouldn't be added until the end of the session either. I personally don't have a problem with adding frame scores after each frame is completed because the frame score will remain correct for that frame and will not have to be altered at any point during the match. That is, once the frame is completed we will be adding correct information to Wikipedia for that frame even if the match isn't completed, unlike the match scores above. Betty Logan ( talk) 21:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

disagree. NOTHING should be added until the end of the match per wp:notnews - "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information". Live frame scores and frame points are breaking news. It was being treated differently from other information by (a) inserting it immediately and (b) italicizing it. Leaky Caldron 21:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It can be added, but it should be hidden until the end of the match. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If it helps maintenance of data, that's fine. Leaky Caldron 21:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If people want to leave adding the frames scores until the end of the match (or add them but keep them non-visible) then I will support that. Betty Logan ( talk) 05:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Changes were made and no objections were raised.

Anyone got ideas as to how to handle the new PTC tour consisting of 13 events (12 tournaments and a grand final)? Apparently the PTC events will carry ranking points ( [3]), but not as much as a standard event. The players infobox already caters for minor ranking events with the 'minor' field (see Joe Swail) which could be used, but since the PTC looks like becoming a major part of the sport perhaps we should add a PTC field to the snooker player infobox? Betty Logan ( talk) 02:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Since the infobox doesn't reference specific tournaments with field names it would be incongruous to introduce one for the PTC, so I think we should use "Minor ranking" to count PTC wins. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, because there will only a fraction of the ranking points of other ranking events offered. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No need for another field in the players infobox as it is still a minor ranking event. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

We will also need to add a "PTC" column to this List of snooker players by number of ranking titles. At the moment the total includes minor events also, but the number of PTC events will outnumber the number of full ranking events so the PTC count will skew the totals too much, so my suggestion is to have two "total" columns - one that just counts full ranking events and a second column that includes them all. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Links are now added.

Can someone add the 'view discussion edit' links to this bar? Christopher Connor ( talk) 20:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Articles about the information in the 2010/2011 season were created. Articles have their own discussion pages for further discussion.

As we know the annual rankings no longer formally exist, they will be updated throughout the season based on a 2-year rolling format. However, the end of season rankings will still determine the "main tour" i.e. who is eligible to play on the main professional circuit. Instead of having the Snooker world rankings 2010/2011 article maybe we should have a Snooker main tour 2010/2011 article, which would basically still be exactly the same article except with a different name to show who is on the tour. There is not much point calling it the Snooker world rankings because the positions will change over the season.

If we do that we would then have to create a new Snooker world rankings article (or add a ranking list to the main article) that can be updated whenever the official snooker world rankings are updated. I'm not sure there is much point in having a new article everytime the rankings are updated, I think it would be better just to keep updating the same article along with the current points of the players.

Finally there is the question of what to do with the Snooker world ranking points articles such Snooker world ranking points 2009/2010. I still think it would be a good idea to have a different list for each season so I think we can leave these articles as they are. Betty Logan ( talk) 20:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should stick to te "Snooker world rankings xxxx/xxxx" name and update it. With every update there will be a new column which indicates the ranking of the player in the previous official rankings. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, that sounds like a good idea. Betty Logan ( talk) 21:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've given Snooker world ranking points 2010/2011 a overhaul. Only 16 players on it so far, but no point adding the rest unless everyone is happy with the layout. I've made the format the same as the previous seasons, with the main changes to accommodate the cut-off totals and the 2008/09 points that still count. Feel free to make any suggestions or changes. Betty Logan ( talk) 17:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Rankings were updated.

Many of the player articles state the current player rankings as those of the 2009/2010 season, whereas there are new rankings for the current season. Rather than saying 2009/2010 season in the infobox, it should now read 'current ranking', particularly with the new ranking system that is being introduced. Anyone agree? Samasnookerfan ( talk) 22:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right, but we should wait until the the investigation against Higgins is resolved. This way we don't need to update all article twice. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Higgins verdict is supposed to be coming in late July or early August so the ranks can all be updated before the season properly gets underway with the Shanghai in September. Here are teh dates for when the rankings will be updated as well: [4] Betty Logan ( talk) 22:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok cheers Armbrust and Betty. Samasnookerfan ( talk) 15:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The WSA have issued a ranking list: [5]. Here are the cut-off dates too: [6] Betty Logan ( talk) 16:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we really ought to get these updated. The qualifiers for the first proper ranking event have started now and this Higgins thing looks like dragging on, so the players are currently playing with rankings we don't have recorded yet. Even if Higgins is banned he won't necessarily lose his ranking, unless he is expelled from the organisation. Since the rankings will be updated in October anyway, if there are ranking repercussions from the Higgins case we can just sort it out with the first lot of updated rankings. Any opinions on this? Betty Logan ( talk) 22:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – All articles were created.

Here are the pages for players cometing on the main tour without articles:

• Dermot McGlinchey NIR (redlink at Grand Prix 2006 (snooker), World Snooker Championship 2007, Tian Pengfei
• Jack Lisowski
• Liam Highfield
• Kyren Wilson
• Anthony McGill
• Justin Astley
• Adam Wicheard
• Patrick Einsle

Just notifying other members that I have updated the needed snooker bios section by adding some of these names, as they are some of the notable players that could do with articles. Samasnookerfan ( talk) 18:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

A new stub, Power Snooker, has been added. It has ben suggested that this stub be merged to main article Snooker. Editors are invited to go to Talk:Power Snooker and leave their views in the debate.-- Kudpung ( talk) 02:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Marking resolved, as further discussion can be made on the aricles talk page. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

I'm thinking of revamping List of snooker tournaments since it has holes in the information it offers. My idea is to structure it as tables (separate tables for rankers, non-rankers, pro-ams so retaining the current organisation of the article. I've done a couple of examples at Talk:List of snooker tournaments#Article structure. Let me know what you think, whether you oppose it, or any recommendations etc. Betty Logan ( talk) 11:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Marking as "Resolved" as article has its own talk page for further discussion. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Just a note.

For players with their own website, I've added |website= to {{ Infobox snooker player}} - see, for example, Ronnie O'Sullivan. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

After looking through some of the articles on top players, I feel that some of them could do with quotes (such as their response after an important win) obviously these would be referenced so was wondering is it ok to copy and paste their comments directly from well sourced articles (world snooker, BBC)? Samasnookerfan ( talk) 19:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It is okay if you add a proper reference. You could use the {{ Quote}} template. But what should we understand under "important win"? Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Other solution would be to create pages on Wikiquote for the important snooker players. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for that, that was just an example it could be but I feel it would help get a better understanding of the player and their thoughts and so make for more informative reading. Samasnookerfan ( talk) 20:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Marking resolved, as every player article has a talk for further discussion. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

This discussion about categorizing the redirect "The black ball final" needs input. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Marking resolved, as further discussion can be made on the aricles talk page. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Just a note.

Shaun Murphy (snooker player) is undergoing GA review here Talk:Shaun Murphy (snooker player)/GA1. Any comments or improvements to the article are welcome. Christopher Connor ( talk) 01:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)