Talk:2019 World Snooker Championship

Too early

We have no real information about this tournament yet. I suggest we change it to a redirect for the next few months until some facts appear. Nigej (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Done.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

History of the sport included on a page for a specific event

I’m a little curious if the early history of the sport is going to be mentioned on every World Championship page from this year forth. It seems redundant, but who am I to judge? Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I 100% agree with you. Redundant in my view. Nigej (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

For background on the event. These sorts of things are paramount for any article ever wanting to be pushed for FA in the future (which is the plan). I've been adding these as part of a suggestion from The Rambling Man. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, the synopsis is hardly redundant to most readers who know little or nothing about the tournament. Of course I’d the snooker project consensus is to remove this and preclude any chance of FA, that would be a real shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm failing to see the logic. Hamlet (as a random example I clicked on) doesn't seem to have a potted summary of Shakespeare's life or of Elizabethan London or of Theatre. Surely someone coming here will surely be aware (if they know nothing of snooker) that they might like to go to Snooker or World Snooker Championship first. Nigej (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, not to worry, if you don’t see the logic, I can’t help you. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

It could be trimmed, if you were against the wording. Information on what the championship is, is quite important. You can't simply assume someone has knowledge of Snooker when hitting an article, or that they know about the world championships. For reference, I am attempting to pass 2018 World Snooker Championship (and later, this one) to FA status. This would mean that it would get (at some point) put on the main page of wikipedia, as "todays featured article", which means that readers would organically see the article, regardless of prior reading.

The same is also true, as the world championship appears annually on In The News, so it will appear on the main page of wikipedia without having to be searched. This is the purpose of the information. Perhaps the history of the championship could be shortened, regarding the nationalities of players and such. See The Boat Race 2018 for reference for a similar article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I also found the information entirely redundant. It has no meaning especially as the vast majority of older articles don't include it and only about 3-4 pages had it mentioned in the last decade. Every time I see that section being included, I'll just remove it because it's not really necessary to include it, when it's the same text every time that just gets copypasted from the previous page.

That's not how it works here. Plus you're absolutely wrong, it's not copy-pasted "from the previous page". Every year's background is different. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

If someone wants to find out more information about it, the link to World Snooker Championship (which is within the first 10 words of the page) can cover it for anyone that is interested (and said page is in much more detail that is useful than any summary put here). These tournament pages should focus on the actual event, not the history of the tournament itself imo.

You're absolutely right, and having a very brief overview is not placing a "focus" on the history of the tournament, just providing context and useful information to a first-time reader who may not know how people qualify, how much the prize fund is etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

If the consensus is that the history should be included in sporting event pages like this one, then you need to go to every snooker tournament page and repeat it and with some tournaments, you're unlikely -- if at all -- to find any information about them that can be summarised effectively. --CitroenLover (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This makes no sense. We don't have to go and change any other article, although doing so would obviously be a good thing to bring the lamentable quality up a notch or three. If the information is unavailable or can't be summarised (any examples of this??) then clearly that information won't be added. One step at a time. Try to drag one article from the gutter up to FA quality and iron out all these bumps. It's certainly safe to say your assertions are generally incorrect though. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The information is clearly not redundant in situ in any sense whatsoever. Giving someone a bit of background (three paras??) on how the tournament works, who plays in it, who wins what etc, is actually really helpful to our readers for whom we are here. Just blanket removing such helpful information is quite disruptive and should be actively discouraged. Of course, it all the snooker contributors here are just seeking a list of statistics and nothing in any sense encyclopedic and complete, then feel free to remove the brief and informative section once again. But if the snooker project are dedicated to serving our readers, they would do well to consider that a few sentences on why and how a tournament works (thus making the seasonal articles comprehensive and standalone) is absolutely vital to progressing articles beyond start class, which I think is just about where 99% of snooker articles sit right now. ACCESS is another topic we need to cover, separately, but the jolly flags and poor use of bold must be addressed too. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Something not appearing on other articles is not a deletion criteria. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course background information is useful. That is the main reason for the links to World Snooker Championship and snooker, both included in the very first paragraph of the page. The redundancy occurs when you repeat background information on World Snooker Championship pages year after year. Best wishes, Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Not at all, a summary of how this specific tournament works with last year's winner and some data on this year's prize fund and qualification etc is really helpful to readers who aren't snooker experts. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess, I will just have to repeat myself from the first paragraph of this section: »I’m a little curious if the early history of the sport is going to be mentioned on every World Championship page from this year forth. It seems redundant.« I will take it, that you will be able to see the difference between "the early history of the sport" and a "summary of how this specific tournament works with last year's winner and some data on this year's prize fund and qualification etc." But I will have to make sure, that we are on the same page. Cheers :-) Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

There's literally nothing wrong with providing readers with context, and it is in no way a "focus" on it, after all it's only a couple of sentences. Perhaps you're not familiar with the vast array of amazing articles I've written on niche sporting events, which are lauded at FAC for their completeness. I'd have a look at some of my accolades, then we can check if we're on the same page! Cheers!! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not see, why I would care about your "accolades", when you use straw-man argumentation. You can't even argue for your position in an honest way, and I find that boring. Anyway, cheers :-) Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you calling me dishonest? That's a personal attack. I find you insulting and rude. Any more of that and you'll find yourself at ANI. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

- Calling it a niche sporting event, is a little redundant, as these issues are site-wide (you will also see issues like this on articles on football, or golf). I think the thing to pay attention to, is that all articles on wikipedia need to be accessable for all readers. Whilst you might link an article, and call it a day (such as the main series page in this case), it doesn't really explain much. Imagine when this article is featured on the main page (which it's a safe bet that most articles could be on the main page, and this one most likely will be), readers will look at the article, with no information on Snooker. The best articles contain all the information you could need to understand the subject contained within the article.

In this case, we should have a little description of 1) what the competition is, 2) a little about the competition 3) how the players qualify for the competition and 4) what the winner receives. I think that three paragraphs is in no way too much information to explain the competition to a novice reader. Currently, this states what snooker is in the first paragraph (which doesn't go into too much detail, simply what it is), the second says what the world championships is, and the final paragraph comments on the prior years championship (which is something all good articles need to comment on), and the prize fund. I don't see this as redundant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is objecting to the concept. But as the title of this talk page section (History of the sport included on a page for a specific event) implies, I think the main objection is to the historical aspects of the section. As you say, we need to put in it into context: mention that its been going since 1927, the Crucible since 1977, defending champion, format, etc. but stuff about India, Joe Davis and Stephen Hendry are, in my view, too tangential. Nigej (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

All this for 3 paragraphs in a long article that'll get longer still? I'm an FAC veteran. Keep it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, and really the focus should be on far more pressing issues such as the multiple failures to comply with MOS. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Event finals table

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker/Archive_8#Event_finals_table never was resolved.

Since 2016 we have been using {{32TeamBracket-WSC2}}. This is the same as {{32TeamBracket-WSC}} that was used from 1982 to 2015 (the redirect {{World Snooker Championship Rounds}} is actually used) except that the "final" section has been expanded: The frame-by-frame section was originally 3 parameters (see eg 2015 World Snooker Championship#Main draw) but was expanded to 7 lines of 3 parameter (plus a currently unused parameter) to give a session-by-session split plus 3 extra rows for high break, centuries, 50+ breaks.

My preference is to go like 2019 Tour Championship - just 1 parameter for the frame scores (instead of 12), leaving out the end of session score.

Final (Best of 35 frames) Crucible Theatre, Sheffield, 6 & 7 May. Referee: Brendan Moore.
John Higgins (5) Scotland	16–18	Mark Williams (7) Wales
23–75, 15–65, 35–72, 60–70 (55), 120–4 (119), 0–133 (95), 98–0 (52), 82–21 (59)	Session 1 3–5	23–75, 15–65, 35–72, 60–70 (55), 120–4 (119), 0–133 (95), 98–0 (52), 82–21 (59)
46–81 (72), 75–31 (51), 127–8 (127), 12–76, 85–9 (56), 123–15 (117), 0–123 (118), 35–64 (64), 43–80	Session 2 4–5 (7–10)	46–81 (72), 75–31 (51), 127–8 (127), 12–76, 85–9 (56), 123–15 (117), 0–123 (118), 35–64 (64), 43–80
5–98 (61), 19–73 (56), 0–126 (69, 56), 7–63 (52), 92–29 (67), 76–65 (72, 65), 80–0 (80), 8–84	Session 3 3–5 (10–15)	5–98 (61), 19–73 (56), 0–126 (69, 56), 7–63 (52), 92–29 (67), 76–65 (72, 65), 80–0 (80), 8–84
131–1 (131), 68–58 (67, 58), 82–47 (82), 91–0, 67–47 (62), 0–74, 15–104 (100), 65–63 (65, 63), 0–71 (69)	Session 4 6–3 (16–18)	131–1 (131), 68–58 (67, 58), 82–47 (82), 91–0, 67–47 (62), 0–74, 15–104 (100), 65–63 (65, 63), 0–71 (69)
131	Highest break	118
4	Century breaks	2
16	50+ breaks	14
Mark Williams wins the 2018 Betfred World Snooker Championship

to:

Final (Best of 35 frames) Crucible Theatre, Sheffield, 6 & 7 May. Referee: Brendan Moore.
John Higgins (5) Scotland	16–18	Mark Williams (7) Wales
Session 1: 23–75, 15–65, 35–72, 60–70 (55), 120–4 (119), 0–133 (95), 98–0 (52), 82–21 (59) Session 2: 46–81 (72), 75–31 (51), 127–8 (127), 12–76, 85–9 (56), 123–15 (117), 0–123 (118), 35–64 (64), 43–80 Session 3: 5–98 (61), 19–73 (56), 0–126 (69, 56), 7–63 (52), 92–29 (67), 76–65 (72, 65), 80–0 (80), 8–84 Session 4: 131–1 (131), 68–58 (67, 58), 82–47 (82), 91–0, 67–47 (62), 0–74, 15–104 (100), 65–63 (65, 63), 0–71 (69)
131	Highest break	118
4	Century breaks	2
16	50+ breaks	14
Mark Williams wins the 2018 Betfred World Snooker Championship

Seems more like our usual style. Nigej (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the first table. Session scores and overall score progression is an important and interesting factor in the final and just because something is "usual" it doesn't mean it can't be improved. Other things we need to address is the use of bold, which isn't great from an WP:ACCESS perspective, and the decorative use of flags, which probably contravenes MOS:FLAG. A way to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, it's also missing row and col scopes which makes it a nightmare for people using screen readers, this also needs to be addressed. It certainly feels like a template should be created for this, rather than the hand-crafted code shown above, that shouldn't be too hard, and then we could work on making it consistent and accessible and in line with MOS across every event. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man - do you have a suggestion for the WP:ACCESS issue? I'm not sure there is a better way to indicate a won frame. It seems like we have quite a few things to denote in each frame - frame score, frame winner, and breaks. Also, not to forget the order of the frames. (You could, theoretically put down frames won for each player in different tables, but that would only be more confusing.)

I totally agree it should be template based. I'd be happy to look into creating a suitable template. I'm not sure we'll ever get a consensus against the flags, but I do understand the argument. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, the first table looks horrid on mobile. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Well we don't really need a consensus against the flags, that's what MOS is all about. They don't do anything beyond decorate because the nationality of the contestants is somewhat irrelevant in an individual sport where affiliation to a given country is completely irrelevant. I think we can make some easy wins on ACCESS with row and col scopes for screen readers, I don't think we actually need to use bold to indicate frame winners, if you understand how numbers work you can see which one is bigger, and if you don't, then using bold only is verboten per MOS:BOLD. I would remove it altogether. Radical, right? Not the "usual style" but doubtless an improvement for all our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally I'm happy to get rid of the flags and bolding. Many of the regular editors are over-keen on flags. The main issue though is the style of the table - to me the worst aspect (by a long way) is the duplication of the frame scores. As you said earlier the "Session scores and overall score progression" are in many way more interesting than the minutiae of the frame scores. I'm also keen on using a template (as I think was obvious from my initial post). Nigej (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd be ok with a removal of flags, but it would need to be a thing across Snooker articles. We could have a bit of a combination of the two above, with the middle column being for session scores (as in table 1), but having each side just one version of the results (like if table 2 split the results to either side of a column. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lee, re:flags, one step at a time. FAC demands high standards, which includes adherence to MOS etc, where we can't just litter articles with decorations. We can easily remove such floral items from a single article, in fact all snooker articles ought to comply with MOS anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Note, both User:Lee Vilenski/32TeamBracket-WSC2 and [7] have been prior attempts at unifying this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

My trouble is that I hate this box-type table much more than the current style. Nigej (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, subjective opinions (e.g. "I hate...") are great, but not of any use whatsoever when it comes to improving the content of the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you've embarked on this campaign to denigrate all my comments. Perhaps you could explain. Nigej (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm simply stating a fact, saying "I hate" something is completely irrelevant. Perhaps choose your phrasing more specifically next time? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

However Lee says " the first table looks horrid on mobile." which you don't comment on and, indeed he gets a "Hi Lee" later. In the earlier discussion (link above) I did say "Still not keen on Lee's table. Looks very messy to me; I much prefer the "prose" style we use currently use elsewhere." And off-hand comments like "Ok, not to worry, if you don’t see the logic, I can’t help you." are clearly not constructive. Nigej (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you expect. "I hate it" is clearly not constructive, but if you can't see the logic behind something, it's not up to me to force you to see that logic, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. Let's stick to the topic in hand, shall we? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Constructive helpful encouraging comments are the order of day. Nigej (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You'll find I've made many of those, particularly around the suitable accessibility of the table. I would encourage everyone to familiarise themselves with MOS requirements if the snooker project ever want to get anything beyond a GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Back to the conversation over the event table; we should really be working on a table that is both aestetically good, and MOS approved. I think wires have been crossed above. I'm not sure I agree with the argument regarding WP:ACCESS. Whilst my knowledge is a little bit lax in that area, as far as I can tell, screenreaders don't read bold text differently than regular text (is that right?) So, removing the bolding from the article doesn't actually do anything, other than change how it looks on the page (potentially missing the argument entirely here). However, if we aren't changing this to something else to display who won the frame (by putting them in different columns or similar), then removing this does nothing for access, and doesn't help the article. As my A-level maths teacher always said: "Don't delete, unless you repeat." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Flagicons

We have a potential conflict here. The issue is a perennial one across sport articles. MOS:CUE#Nationalities and flags and WP:SNOOKER/NF gives the current MOS advice for cue sports and snooker. WP:NOICONS says "Icons should not be used in prose in the article body". Talk:2019 Monte Carlo Rally is a recent discussion. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_14#Formula 1 says "There is consensus to use the national flag icon of an athlete in an international competition as a graphic symbol for that athlete for competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in the particular sport." (which would seem to apply to snooker eg http://www.snooker.org/res/index.asp?template=45&event=743) but says "There is also consensus that the flags should not be used to represent the driver for other events where they do not represent a specific country or for general use." (which to me seems somewhat contradictory). I doubt that this is the latest discussion on the topic.

Personally I'd be happy with a compromise where were keep flagicons in the result brackets/table (per "flags are used to visually identify the sporting nationality of teams and individual players within drawsheets and result tables") but to remove them from sections like the bullet-point lists at the start of the qualification section and the century break section (on the basis that they are prose-like). Nigej (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit of a difficult one really. MOS:CUE was mostly written by SMcCandlish quite a few years ago, whilst still guidelines, they can't overwrite the MOS for wikipedia at MOS:FLAG. I'm happy to have whatever meets the MOS (which seems to be clear removal of flags from Infobox and prose), with a discussion of if this also means places such as brackets and results. I believe there are issues regarding copyright and overusage therof from flags, and why this is an issue. I'm sure Stanton and The Rambling Man know a bit more than me on the subject. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the issue with infoboxes: For biographies MOS:INFOBOXFLAG clearly says "However, the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport." and, as I noted above, that is the case for snooker. For other articles it says "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text." and "Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games." and certainly they are very widely used in sports competition articles and indeed in some Featured Articles, eg 2015 Vuelta a España. Nigej (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The start of that sentence suggests that this is for biographical articles - "As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes even when there is a "country", "nationality", "sport nationality" or equivalent field:" I'm not sure this is ever really discussed in terms of sporting events. I've commented on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons notifying people of this conversation, as I'm not sure what the MOS actually should be in these articles. (Hoping to get some more input) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, for biographies it is generally "discouraged" but "the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport." which would cover everyone playing in the 2019 World Snooker Championship. Nigej (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The current usage is decorative and unhelpful to the readers. Do you know the difference between the Belgium and Luxembourg flags? Can you pick out the Iran flag from the icon? Almost none of our readers will be able to do that. This is yet another stumbling block on any snooker article progressing to FA. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with these claims. These are the commonly presented fallacious arguments of flag deletionists. "They are only decorative". Not true, they do convey information: the nationalities the competitors compete under. This is a World Championship after all. Moreover, the vast majority of readers use the flag icons in such articles to quickly assess how their countrymen fared in such an event. "Do you know the difference between the Belgium and Luxembourg flags?, they are not useful because not every reader knows every flag". Wrong again. Firstly, I know the difference between those flags because the Belgian flag has vertical lines and the Luxembourg one has horizontal ones. But that doesn't even matter. Editors think things through when creating content. These icons are not merely static images. They are generated through accessible templates that allow even blind people to find out what they stand for. A person with perfectly able vision only has to put their mouse or finger on top of them when in doubt. That's where the MOS is actually obsolete. Technologies have evolved massively since its text was written. Secondly, they do not only become useful if everyone knows every flags. They are already useful when any reader simply uses them by tracking their own nationals through their own flags in such tables or even a handful nationalities they know and are interested in. "These flags will block this article from achieving FA status". Utterly wrong. I have seen many sports articles using flags in a comparative manner (e.g. 2012 Tour de France, 2009 Giro d'Italia, List of Wimbledon gentlemen's singles champions, 2014 Japanese Grand Prix, 2015 Formula One World Championship, Maserati MC12, etc]] receiving FA status. In fact I have never seen the presence of flags being used to block an article from getting promotion to FA. So, all in all these claims are simply wrong, leaving no actual justification for removing the flags.Tvx1 10:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Think again. This invalid use of flag icons is contrary to MOS so it is far from "utterly wrong" to state it will preclude promotion. Just because the MOS is abused in other FAs, it doesn't make it right. As noted, the country name should accompany these flags as a minimum. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I think 2009 Giro d'Italia is actually a good example of how the MOS should work on an FA. It has the flags, and the names. Fits for WP:ACCESS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd also like to ping Jamiecameron00 who's been reverting the changes stating "All snooker pages have and always will have nationality flags" to the talk regarding the MOS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

If there's anything in MOS:CUE or MOS:SNOOKER that are obsolete they should just be updated. I don't think they've been substantively revised in years. I would think MOS:INFOBOXFLAG addresses most of this, and it is a site-wide, non-topically-specific rule, thus a higher WP:CONLEVEL compared to things like MOS:CUE. In the two segements quoted at the top of the OP, I detect no conflict/contradiction. Use the flags for events in which flags are used regularly iin the real world to symbolize national representation at the event; don't use them more broadly, for events in which no one is representing a nation. However, there is no point in a flag icon in a bio article's infobox. The fact that Ronnie O'Sullivan is English is conveyed by specifying his nationality as English, not with a flag. Flag icons are useful in tables and lists of sports stats, not in bio infoboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

But then again, they're not useful without country names because we should not assume that our readers can recognise nationality from tiny graphics. And that, that, is a huge problem here. We assume that people know what the Thailand flag looks like, what the Iran flag looks like etc. It's a false assumption. If the article wishes to impart this info to our readers, just using flag icons is wholly inadequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Aye. MOS:FLAGS is actually quite clear on this already: use flag icons as an additional thing to the country name (or in tight tables, standardized country code), when it's genuinely useful and conventional and expected to do so, but a) don't inject them otherwise, and b) don't use them in place of the country name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Quite so. Current usage on this (and most of the other dreadful snooker articles I've stumbled across) contravenes MOS and thus invalidates any hope of them reaching anything more than GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

So, as per the above, what would be the solution? Use the {{flagathlete}} style tags? Or just remove entirely? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the flags add value here because they helpfully show the countries that dominate the sport and, if you were comparing this year with say 1999, you'd see the emergence of China as a 'snooker power', but we should be compliant with MOS and include the country name too. It's a very sensible thing to do, for the reasons stated by TRM. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I can do that with names! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.211.160.71 (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Not as easily, though.Tvx1 10:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Get rid of the flags. They add nothing. This is an individual sport, not the Ryder Cup.

Nope it's a World Championship. Coverage does give importance to nationalities. So they do matter.Tvx1 10:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel like we are getting anywhere towards a consensus here. Would it be an ideal to initiate an RfC on this? I would also like to know how MOS:SPORTFLAGS comes into this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The consensus, I'm afraid, already exists at MOS, which means you either remove the decorative icons, or add the country names next to each one. Either way, the current situation fails MOS and is untenable when considering FAC, despite some erroneous claims above. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

How about this change? Would this be enough to meet MOS? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The MOS says that "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, ...", so we don't need it associated with every use of a flag. Nigej (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Sadly it looks like there are too many edit warriors here Lee for your earnest attempts to comply with MOS to stick. The snooker project seem absolutely serious about never getting anything to featured status, which is a real shame. I'd move onto another, less edited page, and go from there, as once you have a precedent article then all these personal opinions will be meaningless. Good luck, let me know, I'm keen to help, despite the barrage of unhelpfulness coming in. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Just reverting an unagreed change does not count as edit warring. There are other ways of coming to a consensus. Simply dismissing other well-meaning editing that you don't like as "unhelpfulness" is simply insulting. You seem to have a plan to make the change to a snooker article that few are going to notice and then bring it here as a precedent to steamroller all those unhelpful editors. Not a strategy I approve of. Nigej (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid you miss the point completely. The consensus exists per MOS yet edit warriors are adamant to keep snooker articles from making it to FA. I'd suggest Lee removes himself from attempting to do the right thing with this article and work elsewhere, this is beyond frustrating, I'm sure, for someone who wants get articles up the quality scale. And no, it's nothing to do "well-meaning" editors I'm afraid, it's a group who refuse to accept MOS advice and edit war to keep a poor quality version. Not a strategy I approve of. So, Lee, let's find a different article to focus on and leave this to those who wish to protect the poor formatting and anti-MOS approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

You really should drop this rather sarcastic accusations. They are just not true. No one deliberately wants to prevent this article from reaching FA status before. As I explained before, there is no evidence that present usage of flags is an objection for reaching this status. Many articles have successful gone through their FAC with comparable flag usage. Your complaints are just unfounded. I've never ever seen this been raised during an FAC.Tvx1 21:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Just because you've never seen it, it doesn't mean a thing. This isn't sarcasm, it's FACT. There appear to be a few regulars from the snooker project here who are able to read the MOS yet prefer to ignore it. The complaints are not unfounded. The problems are real. The sooner it's dealt with, and the sooner people stop applying their personal preferences over the site-wide guidance, the better. Otherwise, and once again, this isn't sarcasm, this is fact, there's not going to be a snooker FA. Meanwhile, we have half a dozen (or more) rowing FAs. Who knew? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It's wrong to call it edit warring. It is, however, disruptive editing. So far, we've had suggested changes to comply with the site wide manual of style reverted. Ok, so we've hit parts one and two of WP:BRD, but the editors who do, aren't discussing. It's pointless to disagree with the MOS, unless someone plans on creating a WP:RFC on getting MOS:FLAG changed (Which, I'd be totally fine with, if that's the consensus.) However, this doesn't just effect WP:SNOOKER. This article will be featured on the main page (It's on WP:ITN/R after all.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid individuals who just show up to blind revert without discussion are edit warring to keep a "preferred" version in place. Snooker articles aren't exempt from MOS, and blind reverting to contravene MOS is both edit warring which, by its nature, is disruptive. "Not a strategy I approve of", etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

And on the other side, I see two people on teaming up to try and force through their preferred version while blindly dismissing any opposition. That's just as disruptive. As is the patronizing tone taken to those editors. Just a quick reminder that MOS is a guideline, a set of advice, with a notice on top instructing to use common sense. It's not a policy let alone a law. Instead of your snide remarks about adamantly wanting to block reaching FA, it would be better to seek collaboration. I'm sure a solution can be found. I guess that, for instance, (based on how articles on olympic events are presented) the country code could be added between brackets behind the players' names in the first round of our bracket. But then again, I'll remember that these flag icons are generated through accessible templates allowing really everyone to find out what they mean.Tvx1 21:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it is the patronising style that is so annoying. Nigej (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it's the deliberate ignorance of MOS which is so annoying. But have it your way, we'll focus elsewhere while these articles languish in mediocrity. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, no, that's bollocks. What I see is people blind-reverting and not discussing things, and other people pointing at MOS saying this is what is recommended for any article on Wikipedia. By all means have a personal disagreement with MOS, but recognise that to achieve FA, compliance with MOS isn't desirable, it's mandatory. Collaboration only works via communication, and what I'm seeing through continual blanket reverts by edit warring is nothing like collaboration. There has been no "blind dismissal" of anything here, other than by those edit warring to maintain their personal preference in spite of MOS wording. I'm glad you conclude with an agreement that the current situation is contrary to MOS and that you also agree with me that just flag icons alone are insufficient. And by the way, there's no "teaming up", you need to retract that unsavoury and despicable accusation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Again that is blatantly untrue. That compliance is not mandatory at all. As have explained and demonstrated, I have NEVER seen this flag usage being used to block an article successfully passing a FAC. On the contrary, I have seen many of these sort of articles being promoted to FA with this flag issue. You're making a much larger fuss out of this than needed. The reality is that close to all of our readers understand these entire articles perfectly.Tvx1 21:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

A claim which has no substance or verifiability whatsoever. I bet even you don't know the difference between the Belgian flag and the Luxembourg flag. Oh, and I'm not making a fuss, I'm simply looking to ensure our articles serve our readers. On the other hand, a number of users here are adamant that MOS should be completely disregarded by the snooker project (in general). Lamentable. P.S. Just remind me how many FAs the snooker project has? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

And which claim of yours had any sort of verifiability? Again, these are the sort of sarcastic patronizing comments that are just not necessary. I know the difference between those flags. I even explained it before. They don't even resemble each other at all. I even know the difference between the much more alike Luxemburg and Dutch flags. I you had bothered to check, you would have found out that I'm Belgian. Accusing me of not knowing my own flag is just so immensely below the belt. The way you treat the people here who want to keep the flags is just utterly appalling. As I explained before, editors are not stupid. The icons are generated through accessible templates which allow everyone, even blind people, to find out what they stand for. The goal of the MOS is thus very much respected. And that not everyone knows every flag is not an argument. Years of editing sports articles have shown me that lots and lots of reader can already make good use of them even if they only want to scan for their own national flag. Lastly the lack of snooker FA's isn't even remotely the fault of the presence of flags. Or else you would have been able to produce a snooker FAC which was unsuccessful solely because of the presence of flags.Tvx1 14:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I don’t care one iota where you’re from, not for a second. And none of this is sarcasm, or patronising, simply advice needed to follow on order to get to FA. Snooker articles don’t, among many other MOS issues, and no snooker articles are FA. Simple. But you carry on believing whatever you think is right, we’ve left this article to you lot now. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, It's disappointing that you are not willing to reconsider your proven mistaken belief that this will prevent this article from becoming a FA. It's clearly up to the other editors to prove you wrong now by getting this article to FA status anyway.Tvx1 11:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear, you'll regret saying that I think! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I won't. I have successfully helped articles with such flag usage through FAC, there is no reason to believe it can't happen again.Tvx1 13:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

One, which fails basic FAC criterion 2 in numerous ways and should be delisted. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

- Would just like to point readers' attention to the featured candidate of last years event. Feel free to leave comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting... a number of users here are adamant that MOS should be completely disregarded by the snooker project – see Live scores below. Frustrating is not the word! Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Is Mostafa Dorgham the African champion?

I can't find any source--42.3.195.100 (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

He isn't I think. ABSF African Snooker Championships has him as the losing finalist. By winning, Mohamed Ibrahim (snooker player) gained a place on the tour but withdrew. Presumably Dorgham is playing as the African representative. This should be made clear (assuming it is correct). http://www.worldsnooker.com/criteria-set-for-crucible-qualifiers/ says that "Should any of the above-named players decline their invitation then consideration will be given to alternative qualifying routes, to include continental championships and the 2018 Q School Order of Merit." although I can't find anything about Dorgham specificially. Nigej (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems very likely he didn't win the tournament, but there isn't a great deal of online sourcing for the championships Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Should James Cahill's bracket entry note his amateur status?

Other major sports around the world, notably golf and tennis, indicate amateur status within a bracket, usually signified with a "(a)" following their name (asterisked to "amateur" in the legend of the bracket). Should James Cahill's name indicate as such for the final field? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelopolis (talk • contribs) 14:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Amateurs are quite common in snooker, and in golf, there are special rules for someone being an amateur. Whereas, in Snooker it simply means they aren't on the tour. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Nevertheless it may be of use and/or interest to our readers to see how far through the various rounds any amateurs may have made it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Broadcasting rights section?

Should there be a separate "Broadcasting rights" or "Media coverage" section near the foot of the article, just as there is on articles for other big sporting events? Might be better than having a sentence (which is getting longer by the day!) about it in the opening section. Also, I think the Facebook coverage is specific to South/Central America and South Asia, rather than being "worldwide". Edin75 (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if there's enough to discuss to cover a section, then this would be very useful for our readers. I've often found it hard to expand to a whole section for niche sports like The Boat Race, but it's definitely worth a try. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

100% I usually make something like this such as 2018 World Snooker Championship#Broadcast. I'll knock something up when I'm next at a PC. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Live scores

I think Anaxagoras13 has a point in this diff which was swiftly reverted by another editor. WP:LIVESCORES does in fact state that "The current consensus is to not add visible match or frame scores to an article until the match is completed. Wikipedia should only record the results of the match..." If that is the current consensus in the Snooker MOS then why on earth are we not following it? I appreciate that we are currently in full flow with the 2019 championship so it would be absurd to change the approach at this point for this particular tournament, but I fail to see why the consensus is repeatedly being ignored when there was never any overwhelming argument for changing the consensus. All I can see is that not enough people got involved in the discussion and the consensus was therefore not changed. So whose decision was it to just ignore the MOS? I can see a couple of editors intent on providing live scores – surely one of these days they might like to sit back and relax and actually just enjoy watching a match!? Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archive 8#Frame-by-frame scores has an earlier discussion. Nigej (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

As per both of the above. It has never been accepted to update live scores on Wikipedia. However, any times I've attempted to stop the behavior in the past has been for naught. It's such a ridiculous uphill battle with editors cracking up thousands of edits simply for flouncing the rules.

However, I think most people (such as myself) would rather just concentrate on working on the articles, rather than try and cut out this behaivour. It's easier to stop in something like soccer, or rugby where matches aren't updated as commonly. I've also seen a lot of these editors like the status quo; but would never partake in the conversations about this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I've sometimes wondered if we've had WPBSA people doing live scores. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I've always wondered myself. Who's updating scores on the Indian Open qualifying. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Since it's clearly against policy it should be kept acting against. If it persists, requesting protection of the page might be warranted.Tvx1 13:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, WP:RPP would be fine, but considering most of the users involved are autoconfirmed/extended confirmed, it won't do a great deal. It would help to put a basis down to warn users, however. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

OK THIS IS NOW GETTING PERSONAL! Last night I made 4 progressive edits:

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_World_Snooker_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=895214826
→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_World_Snooker_Championship&diff=next&oldid=895214826
→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_World_Snooker_Championship&diff=next&oldid=895219618
→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_World_Snooker_Championship&diff=next&oldid=895220596

The first two fixed the ref.62 citation error and the 2nd two were a minor copyedit of the QF section. When I checked in this morning, all 4 of these edits had been reverted unintentionally by User:Mensos who was clearly involved in the unsanctioned live score updates, along with User:Jamiecameron00, User:Piotras18 and User:NuclearMissile. Whilst a match is in progress, it appears that one or other of these editors is sitting on an open edit of the Main draw section which as soon as it's published then wipes out any other edits that have been made in the meantime, which effectively bars the article from being edited by anyone else. This is what appears to have happened to my citation correction and copyedit that I did last evening, so I now need to do them again! Please look at the references section... there is a cite error for ref.62 which last night I FIXED but it has come back again because of the revert. I therefore see the live scoring as a form of disruptive editing and suggest we move to WP:ANI which is specifically for "discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, not a bad idea. The article is rife with ownership and live editing issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I have requested WP:RPP for this at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#2019 World Snooker Championship. I agree with disruptive editing. As much as it's not neccesary (and Extended autoconfirmed probably won't deter a lot of the culprits), it at least shows that these edits shouldn't be happening. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I am putting a polite warning notice on the following talk pages: User talk:NuclearMissile, User talk:Cerberus64, User talk:Piotras18, User talk:Jamiecameron00, User talk:Wimrfin, so we can't be accused of not making all efforts to solve this locally and amicably. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Is the intention 1) to come to a consensus or 2) to stop frame-by-frame scoring? Nigej (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

We already have a consensus against frame-by-frame scoring at WP:LIVEUPDATES. So, to stop it until a decent argument for it is brought up that becomes the new consensus. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:LIVEUPDATES is a "style guide" not a consensus. Perhaps it needs reaffirming? Nigej (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it's actually the MOS. It's at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Snooker, and the wording even points to the fact it's been the consensus for a while. If there is to be a conversation on it (which would be fine), it doesn't mean we should allow users to go against this until a new consensus is found. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The exact wording is Wikipedia is not Wikinews, nor is it a sports ticker tape. The current consensus is to not add visible match or frame scores to an article until the match is completed. It's shown earlier how this causes issues with editing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

That all true. However, we clearly have a certain amount of "civil disobedience" about it. The question is whether to stamp down hard on it or to respond in some other way. Nigej (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is much more that can be done. For instance this edit happened after the user had already responded to the notification to not live updating. I'd love to have a civil conversation about it all, but I don't see any of the editors involved commenting. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

They can all be banned. However, if we banned all editors who didn't follow the MOS, perhaps we won't have many editors left. Nigej (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The ones left at least would have respect for the encyclopedia rather than treating it like some kind of game where who makes the edits first wins, or who deems a personal preference to be superior to a site-wide guideline. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but some of the "chaff" (as you put it) do or might do other useful things and casting them to the wind might not be a good long-term strategy. Nigej (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Like live score updating? No, that kind of editing is not required. And when wilfully editing in contravention of MOS, despite being told, that's also not required. It's not a strategy I approve. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

So there's been an improvement this evening and the match score was only updated at the mid-session interval and once by a new editor who I've since contacted on their Talk page because they possibly weren't aware of this discussion. The MOS indicates that we should only be recording the final result once the match has concluded. Is that too much to ask I wonder? Personally, I think we should aim for, at most, one update at the end of each session (normally 8 frames) but strictly speaking even that contravenes the MOS and goes against consensus. (P.S. In the days before I became a wiki editor, I used to use the snooker articles as a quick reference for the latest snooker scores if I wasn't able to watch the match, so I definitely saw these articles as live bulletins, which is the very thing we're trying to address.) Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a little up for interpretation. This might be the best for these championships. Remember, it's only a few tournaments/matches that have duel sessions, and it might be an idea to get a new consensus after the event. I was planning on bringing a few things up at WT:SNOOKER soon anyway, so this is likely to be one of them. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I was not aware of this discussion, thanks for pointing me out! I've wrongly made alterations, I do hold Wikipedia's conventions high, so I will refrain now from changing scores of life matches. user:Mensos

Thank you Mensos. It seems we might be getting somewhere. That was a great match was it not!? Pleased for both of them. DG deserves to be really proud of himself. Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Jamiecameron00 got the memo. And yes, the standard of the final stages of the 2019 WC was phenomenal. Mrloop (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Playing conditions

I'd love to add a section on the playing conditions - specifically Robertson vs Higgins had a lot of stuff about how poor the cushions were playing. However, most of what I've found is from non-RS (specifically daily mail, The Sun and Metro). I found this from the BBC, but it's pretty neutral, and isn't enough on it's own. Anyone know of any sources that would talk about this in more detail? (I was surprised EuroSport weren't more commentative about it. The BBC mentions it in broadcast, but nothing outside.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:ITN

Hi all, just to let you know the article is currently featured under In The News on the main page. This could mean there is an influx of editors/viewers (Or, it could mean nothing). Who knows. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Commonwealth

please change ((Commonwealth)) to ((Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth))

 Partly done: I have removed the sentence instead. It is not sourced, and this idea does not appear in snooker, as far as I can tell. It is not useful here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, the version you now have, says that the sport is played in Asian countries. This is quite misleading as the sport is still absolutely dominated by players from the United Kingdom. I understand the commonwealth potentially being the wrong word, but it was played by those countries. However the wording now is worse IMO. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The sport's article says it was played in India (by the British), spreading to the UK afterwards. Whatever, you will need to provide a reliable reference if you want to make specific claims like this. Bazza (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

That wasn't difficult, was it? I'm not entirely sure why you couldn't have simply used the cite needed tag. It's hardly contentious information. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Not keen on patronisers. Regardless, the long discussion you mentioned (above) was about including background information about the World Snooker Championships. My objection was to including historical information about the sport's origins and spread when this is an article about a specific event. The current version which states that "Traditionally, the sport is played..." is inaccurate: it's not a tradition, nor is it current; if this wording is to be retained, then it should at least be something like "Historically, the sport was played mostly...".

WP:SOFIXIT rather than just continually deleting it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I did fix it, by deleting it: once because unreferenced information was added, the second time because, on reflection, I didn't think it should be there at all (not a unique opinion): the main World Snooker Championships article doesn't contain that information, nor many of the previous years' tournaments articles. I was reverted both times. As it stands, "traditional" has been replaced with "originally" which is fine, but continued use of the present tense is wrong; but, having had the decency to point out these errors I'm not about to fix something which shouldn't be there at all. Bazza (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

As long discussion above - Something not appearing in other articles is not a deletion criteria. I don't see how this could be considered too much. The article is currently on the main page of wikipedia, where users who click the article should not have any pre-requisites for reading. That means, at least for a sentence or two, saying what, where and when snooker is might be vital for a reader. Once you have established that it's a cue sport, and that it has a history, and that it's played worldwide, you can then continue on to describing the event in detail. By the same token, many of the events such as the 2000 World Snooker Championship has 7 bullet points for the tournament summary. Does that mean all other articles in the series also cannot contain prose? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There's no problem at all with it. It's been well established in a number of featured articles about similar yearly events that a bit of background doesn't go amiss. It's not insulting to the reader (that's just absurd), if a reader doesn't know about snooker having clicked on the link from the main page which has/had a nice image, then he gets a bit of background. If the reader knows about snooker and the history of the tournament, he can choose not to read the bits that don't interest him. Perfectly apt. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: @The Rambling Man: I'm not sure why you keep trying to convince me to change my mind. I gave my opinion, and extra in pointing out the (still unfixed) tense error. But as you have: I personally don't agree with the historical background part and I've said why I think that (off-topic). I've not made any comment about describing snooker as a cue sport. I've not said articles cannot contain prose. I've not said that something not appearing in other articles is a deletion criteria. Lee's change from "Traditional" to "Originally" and added reference is an improvement, albeit it with a grammar error. Bazza (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to do anything to do, just stating facts. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No, your stating your own opinion and is nothing more than that. It's time for you to realize and accept that that there is little agreement with it.Tvx1 12:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not confuse here. You disagree with me, but many others who have been through the FAC process many dozens of times don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

However they haven't seen fit to say so here, so that is also just your opinion. Nigej (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Woof! Now then, back to the regular schedule. Is anyone going to do anything about all the ACCESS issues in the article or not? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we're all accepting that a "bit of background doesn't go amiss". The issue is whether the origins of the sport should be included in this. Since you're the facts man, I'd be interested in a few examples. Does the 1956 FA Cup Final contain a history of soccer? No. Or the 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix a history of F1. No. Seems to me that you and Lee Vilenski are showing a huge amount of WP:OWNERSHIP on this one. You're quite determined to keep it, I can see that. But surely the whole point of wikiepedia is that it's an interlocking system of articles; our users know that. Background is one thing but overdoing it is to the detriment of the article. Nigej (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Ownership? Ironic! Come back to me when you get a featured article in the next twelve months. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it's a competition. Bazza (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not. It's about understanding what it takes to get articles up to a reasonable standard for FAC. I don't see many snooker project members doing it right now, do you? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

I have to say that I'm completely unimpressed by the fact that you've "got" featured articles. Shows a classic "ownership" style I'm afraid. The form of your posts here is decidedly repetitive: saying how clever you are, how stupid everyone else is (eg "chaff") while not producing any justification for your position. Please provide examples of GA sports articles that include a history of the sport concerned in their "background" section. Nigej (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC) I have to say that I'm completely unimpressed by the fact that whole entire snooker Wikiproject hasn't got a single featured article and continually edits to prevent it from happening. Shows a classic "ownership" style I'm afraid. "Not something I approve of" at all. But for you information, I'm done here, let's focus on the comments at the FAC for the 2018 article, that may demonstrate a good template for going forward, which isn't dependent on my experienced approach. Good luck! By the way, the FAs you noted were promoted in 2008. Times have changed, standards have markedly improved. I should know. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC) All you seem able to do is to make snide comments. No need to reply but I think I know you will - must have the last word. Nigej (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC) I'm even more unimpressed! I thought you folks got "irony"!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Oh no, it isn't. Nigej (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Oh... yes it is! Cheers, good luck with your project, hope to see you at the FAC. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Oh no, it isn't. I'm a parrot too. Nigej (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC) I think you mean "parakeet" but hey! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC) I seem to be right. No need to reply but I think I know you will - must have the last word. Nigej (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Are you a Norwegian Blue??! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC) I seem to be right. No need to reply but I think I know you will - must have the last word. Nigej (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Shuffled off his mortal coil... Ciao Nige, you really improved things with the ownership piece, next time let's work on compliance with the MOS! And suggest this pointless thread is now capped, and suggest the Snooker project members get together and actually improve the articles to FA status instead of fighting directly against doing so. Cheers y'all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC) I seem to be right. No need to reply but I think I know you will - must have the last word. Nigej (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It has. Nigej (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Template in user space

The template used for the scores in each frame in the final etc should not be one that is transcluded from user space. This needs addressing, along with the lack of aesthetic appeal and the failure to meet ACCESS requirements. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Any ideas on a solution to these issues? Every topic created for this point has failed to find a suitable template, which is why the current one is being used. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Well first up any template used should be in the main template space rather than user space, so you are free to move your template there. Secondly, it needs to be ACCESSIBLE which means it needs to be readable by screen readers and doesn't use just bold or colour alone to denote something of importance. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

to be fair, the reason it is in userspace was because of these issues. It does use tool tips to display information, but as I've never used a screen reader, I don't really know how you could make it read something like this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand the background. You might need to bring in some expert advice from someone like RexxS who has given me tons of advice on accessibility issues over the years, especially as I'm currently not in need of any tools to help me enjoy Wikipedia (e.g. I'm not colour blind, I'm not using a screen reader etc). For me, there's a really sweet spot on these kinds of problems where we can address the usual aesthetics for 99% of our readers (e.g. the variable column sizes depending on frame scores is hideous) while also accommodating our accessibility-challenged readers (e.g. using row/col scopes, decent colour schemes, symbology as well as just colours etc). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Lee has put in a lot of work to produce something that's usable, so hopefully we can make some improvements without losing the work done. Oddly, Template:32TeamBracket-WSC2 already exists and also has some transclusions, so Lee's template looks to be a fork. The interested editors will need to decide on which one they are going to settle on. I'd be happy to do any admin actions for them if there needs to be some tidying up.

@Lee Vilenski: Using tables for layout is not a recommended technique these days, as they often cause problems for accessibility. Nevertheless, I think that what you've produced is readable with a screen reader, if a little bit cumbersome.

In the first table, I've marked up the column headers as headers for you, and I've added the scope="col" attribute to them to make navigation around the table more amenable for screen readers. There is a lot of bolding in the table (indicating the winner of each match), which won't normally show up to anyone listening to a screen reader, but as the winner obviously appears in the next round (i.e. a column to the right), that's not a fatal fault.

In the second table, the bolding and the tooltips won't normally show up to a screen reader user, so they will have to work out which frame were won by whom by checking the scores. That's a chore, but it doesn't completely exclude them from the information. I've marked up the frame numbers as column headers and scoped them. I've also marked up the players' names as row headers and scoped them. That should make it easier for someone using a screen reader to navigate around that table now. The only consequential visual difference is that the player names have the background colour of a header (because they are now row headers).

If you're interested in how tables can have improved accessibility, you can read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial, which encapsulates good advice for any table. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi RexxS, that's exactly right. There is the other template, which are used on the majority of these articles. I found them to be pretty hard to use, and duplicate information. There seems to have been a lot of conversations, but users don't seem to agree on what should be done. Is there anything I can do to improve who won a frame on a screen reader? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: It's not always the sort of thing that other editors want, but we sometimes use an additional symbol to indicate extra information, and we've made a series of some special templates like {{dagger}} which is used like like this †. See Template:Dagger #See also for similar alternatives. It's actually an image, and it allows you to add a descriptive piece of text as alt text which the screen reader can read, so for example you could use: {{tooltip|2=frame winner|66}} {{dagger|Frame winner}} which would show up as 66 †. When the screen reader reaches the dagger symbol it will read out "Frame winner" (or whatever piece of text you've put there). You could also add a key next to the table stating † = Frame winner, which has the additional benefit of making clear who was the frame winner for readers using touchscreens, who have no ability to hover. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. I've moved this to template space now, and I'll have a look at using daggers for this purpose. I suppose the tool tips would be redundent at this point, no? I'll see if I can fix this table. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2019 World Snooker Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 10:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Consider constraining the ToC even down to just the top-level headers, there's a huge amount of whitespace at the top of the article right now.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• "Trump became the eleventh.." was it Trump's first ever world title?

• Added a bit about that - it is pretty notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• John Higgins doesn't need disambiguation.
  •  Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• "20 April–6 May 2019" spaced en-dash.
  •  Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• No mention of Betfred in the lead (e.g. "(also referred to as the Betfred World Snooker Championships for the purposes of sponsorship)" or something similar?)
  • added some Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• "The previous year's championship was " Think there's a risk we've lost where we are with this current year as we've delved into some of the history of the tournament, so perhaps reinforce that it was the 2018 championship.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• "twenty rankings events" surely just "ranking"?
  •  changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• "world rankings (revision 10)," as per a previous review, not sure on "revision 10" without explanation.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• " as best of 19 frames" -> " as the best of 19 frames" etc.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• "as twenty-two wildcard" 22.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• "women's world champion" piped to a redirect.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• You could actually name her too, along with the others you've highlighted in that list.
  • Not really sure how I could. I don't name the Amateur world champion, just players who have played in the final of the world championship. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• "three best of 19 frame matches" -> " three best-of-19-frame matches"
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• "frame matches.[15][5]" ref order.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• " equalling Stephen Hendry's 27 consecutive appearances" if it's equalling, no need to repeat the record, we'll assume it's the same...
• "once: 2016).[15][5] " ref order.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• " 2005).[15][5] O" again.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• "Main Stage " stage.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• "128 players competed" avoid starting sentences with numbers.
  • reworded. 14:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• "since 1999—made" you link this tournament, but it's the first time, e.g. when you list out when former champions won their titles, those tournaments aren't linked...
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• "2006 World Champion Graeme Dott " put a The in front here.
  •  DoneBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• "child" why not "12-year-old son" per the source?
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• "match. He accrued just 89" merge, "match, accruing just 89..."
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• "and low points total." lowest.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• "Higgins gained a 6–3 lead after his initial session" -> "Higgins took a 6–3 lead after the initial session"
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• " eight times in his previous 15 a" fifteen.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Is "baulk" listed in the glossary? I would link it if so.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• "world number 2" two (to be consistent).
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• "but fell apart on a simple red" not encyclopedic in tone. Do you mean he just missed it?
  • Reworded  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• "post session" I would hyphenate.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• "16th seeded David Gilbert..." avoid starting with a number
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC).
• "2019 Masters winner " again, add a The.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• "was "shit".[69][71][70]" order.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• "4th seed Neil Robertson, lost" avoid number starts...
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• "In a repeat of the 2011 World Championship final, Judd Trump captured his maiden World Championship title." mildly confusing because if it's a repeat of the final, he can't be capturing his maiden title...!
  • reworded - could be too wordy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• "by Stephen Hendry, .[93] " remove comma and space.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• "Six-time champion Steve Davis " I think you've mentioned him being a "six-time champ" a few times now...
  • Yeah, got rid Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• "Referee: Leo Scullion.[104]" no full stop required.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• (Just an aside, we're going to need to work on a solution for that summary table. It's ok but nothing more...! Future project...)
  • Yeah, I've been meaning to put time into this... But it's servicable. It's not really my area, but I'll take a look. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Pang Junxu isn't linked in the prose but is in the qualifying tables (but only once)...
  • Removed - he isn't notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• "100 centuries..." same again.
  • Reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• "122 century breaks..." ditto.
  • Ditto Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• I wonder if it's beneficial to include in parentheses how many each player made, to avoid having to count up the scores?
  • Potentially - This would potentially be allowable under WP:COUNT. Is this a deathnail, as I'd like to talk this one through with the Wikiproject before going ahead. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• "by World Snooker internationally " here you use italics, but earlier on (Hearn) you don't, be consistent.
  • removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Be consistent in the refs with "the Guardian" and "The Guardian" and linking.
  • Fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Ref 43, e.g., you don't need "sport, Guardian" as the author.
  • Caught it Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

That's sufficient for a first pass I think. Let me know if anything's unclear, otherwise I'll see you soon! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Quick warning, it may take me a little time to get to this one - a little busy with something else, but I am on it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I'm on holiday until Friday so my time here is going to be intermittent! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• • The Rambling Man Hope you had a good holiday, think I got it all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I'll take a look in the next couple of days. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Happy with the changes and the quality of the article now easily meets/exceeds the GA criteria, so I'm passing this article. Good work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your time TRM! I'll try and do a little more cleanup before I nominate for FA (My current FAC just needs a source review before I can nominate another). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Aaron Hill redlink

@Pawnkingthree: Hello. Please can you remove the redlink from Aaron Hill in this article. Why would we want to redlink him and none of the other rookies in the Qualifying section? Aaron Hill, Ross Bulman, Dylan Emery, Florian Nüßle, Mostafa Dorgham, Adam Lilley, Farakh Ajaib were all eliminated in first qualifying round, and Pang Junxu was knocked out in the second qualifying round. None of these players currently has a BLP (hence no wikilink) and it's very unlikely that BLPs will be created for any of them unless or until they become notable, which probably won't happen until they start progressing further in prominent tournaments. We normally don't redlink players in tournament articles on the offchance that they make it big and become notable at a later date, otherwise the articles would be spattered with ugly redlinks. It's easy enough to go back and "fill in the gaps" so to speak as and when a player comes under the spotlight. Thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree - Aaron Hill I think is very likely to meet our guidelines on notability already. I looked into it a while back and almost made the article. [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] etc. Whilst we usually have a guideline of those on the tour being notable, there's still notable players away from the tour. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes he's clearly notable as Lee has demonstrated. There is nothing wrong with redlinking a notable player.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm a great fan of red links. I know there been a tradition in WP:SNOOKER to remove them all, but that's not what WP:REDLINK says. We shouldn't be in the business of prettifying Wikipedia by not having them. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Nigej (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. Look forward to seeing his article spring up soon then :) Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• World Snooker Championship 2015 Logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

QF sourcing

I noticed the sourcing in the quarter-finals section was a bit dodgy a few months ago and then forgot all about it until today when I came across it in my notes. I've had a good look through the available sources, moved some tags about and added some new ones in. I think it's all OK now but if anyone wants to check what I've done, feel free! Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)