Talk:2024 World Snooker Championship

Stub nature

For some reason, a random editor used a script to put this page into the draft namespace. I am unclear as to why this was done: snooker articles have traditionally been stubs from the start, because they have some basic information that allows them to be a stub, so having them in the draft namespace makes no sense and discourages contributions from editors in an already-niche community that lacks a large number of editors to oversee the content. I have moved this back to the main namespace as it was moved erroneously, as well as removed the unnecessary templates and enabled the categorisation of the page. -- CitroenLover (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good start albeit a bit early for this topic. I'm marking it as reviewed. Happy editing!

North8000 (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"f" is for female players?

I'd like to ask why this piece of information is relevant to be added to the qualifying draw. Professional snooker is a unisex sport that happens to be dominated by men, but women (including Reanne Evans) can nonetheless earn tour cards for the professional tour and compete with men as equals, while other women (like Bai Yulu) can compete as amateurs just like male amateurs. Adding information about a player's status as an amateur for example makes sense, because they can earn tour cards through competing, but adding the "f" for female to player names in the draw seems like a strange decision to have been made. Storm0005 (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't say I like it either. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with both of you. I think this came about because our main source for seeding data (snooker.org) makes this distinction. It is easily removed if the consensus is to do so.  Alan  (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree as well, not needed and better avoided. Andygray110 (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Players in the tournament are either professionals (including female professionals like Reanne Evans and Mink Nutcharut) or amateurs (including Bai Yulu). We don't need "f" beside female players' names, any more than we need an "f" beside Fallon Sherrock's name in a professional darts tournament. It's both unnecessary and derogatory. And what happens if a player identifies as non-binary, etc.? HurricaneHiggins (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding my two cents here to say I’d agree as well. AmethystZhou (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I have removed them.  Alan  (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Good work Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: If (as all have pretty much agreed) it is inappropriate to identify female players as such in the table, how come it's OK to single them out for a separate paragraph in the prose?  Alan  (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems like a suitable way to split the prose. We would also likely do similar with amateurs, young players or particularly successful players from the past. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough.  Alan  (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

O'Sullivan breaking Fred Davis Appearance Record

Wonder if their might be a way to reference the fact with his 32nd appearance at the main draw of the World Championship this year Ronnie O'Sullivan will not only extend his modern era record (beating Steve Davis's 30 appearances with his 31st last year of course) but also break Fred Davis's 31 appearances (in the main draw of knockout tournaments + appearances in the challenge matches in the 60s) to set an all time record rather than just a modern era record. Snookerfollower (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Needs a source.  Alan  (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Presentation of numbers in draw

Here we go again... For every previous World Championship, the Wiki page shows bracketed numbers against only the top 16 players seeded through to the main draw. At best there is split opinion on here whether adding ranking numbers for qualifiers improves or detracts from the presentation of the draw. There are also a number of users becoming disillusioned with multiple changes being made to long-established page presentation formats on the initiative of one or two individuals. Please can we remove the bracketed numbers from the 16 players who were not seeded through to the main draw. Rio309w (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Our main source for seedings https://www.snooker.org/res/brackets.asp?event=1460 has the numbers exactly the same as in our bracket.  Alan  (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The numbers in the brackets are correct insofar as they show the world rankings of the qualifiers. Snooker.org chooses to show this information but doesn't imply that they represent draw seedings. The numbers shouldn't be shown in the draw bracket on the Wiki page because: 1) those players aren't seeds in the main draw (ref: in today's draw the presenters referred to the "seed bag" as opposed to the non-seed bag; Mark Allen said only the top 16 are seeded players; Rob Walker spoke about Tom Ford being seeded for the first time); 2) it changes the format used in the Wiki pages for every previous World Championship; 3) there is no consensus that this change is correct or an improvement. Rio309w (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

We simply summarise what sources do. I can't say I care really, but if sources do something, we should too.

Yes, article formats will change over time. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't say I care much either. But it is valid data from a reliable source. If it annoys you so much, then we could add some text above the bracket to indicate that only the top 16 are seeds, and the other numbers are rankings.

There is no requirement to follow "long-established page presentation formats".  Alan  (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added some text to clarify.  Alan  (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

...and the screen behind the players at the Crucible is showing the same numbers in parentheses.  Alan  (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

And both BBC and Sky are showing numbers in parentheses for the 16 seeds only. No wonder we're struggling, when the main sources are so inconsistent! The thing I most miss in this year's layout - with everyone having parentheses, you can no longer see "at a glance" how many qualifiers have got past R1. Would be of particular use this year given the carnage in R1! Rio309w (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You are right about the WST being inconsistent. Anyway, the numbers in parentheses on the screen behind the players are their rankings and not their seeds, since ROS had (1) on the screen behind him. It seems to me a fairly simple "at a glance" to tell which numbers are greater than 16.  Alan  (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

...and Trump has the number (2) at tonight's match, which is his rank rather than his seed which is (3).  Alan  (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I notice there's now italics on the rankings of the qualifiers, that helps with my "at a glance" comment earlier. Rio309w (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes - I thought it might help.  Alan  (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

This presentation is so confusing. It's plain wrong and close to WP:ORIGINAL. 2A00:23C8:4F06:4F01:6DC6:44C4:CFA7:6F91 (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

How is it original research when it comes directly from one of our main sources [7]? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Lee's comment above about original research: it isn't.

Just saying you don't like something without being specific isn't constructive. The original post in this thread was very specific, but Rio309w now seems to be satisfied with the changes made.  Alan  (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The three-revert rule

@Lee Vilenski, Nigej, and AmethystZhou: I think I might be getting close to breaking the three-revert rule, since I have reverted tooltip deletions, live scores, orphaned flags, and some idiot IP user who changed the century breaks to frame scores. And it's only the first day [sigh]. Could I ask you guys to also keep an eye on things in case I get blocked.  Alan  (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Revering genuine vandalism (I haven't looked at the edits to confirm either way) isn't a break of 3RR.

I (obviously) have the page under watch, but my time is currently limited. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think any of it has been vandalism - just misguided.  Alan  (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

There is an IP user who keeps putting in orphaned flags. I have now done 3 reverts.  Alan  (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

...and now into an edit war.  Alan  (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski and Nigej: Is it possible to get this IP user blocked. This is getting annoying.  Alan  (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@AlH42 should get blocked as well if I get blocked

Why shouldn't the flag be there we already know that whoever wins is English so I don't see what the problem is with putting the flag in 86.150.242.205 (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

So if Mark Williams is playing Mark Allen then we should add "Mark" because we know the winner will be called Mark? Just wait until the match is over and then put the winner in, its so easy. Nigej (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

To me it just makes sense to put the flags in if we already know the nationality of the players 86.150.242.205 (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum before, and the consensus was NOT to put in orphaned flags  Alan  (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

You could try to get it semi-protected via WP:RPP. Perhaps ask for 14 days. Nigej (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I've tried that.  Alan  (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

86.150.242.205 has now been blocked for 31 hours, but the request for semi-protection isn't making any progress.  Alan  (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It can take a bit of time for it to get done at RfPP. I have the tools to do so, but I'm pretty close to the topic, so I'd rather only do it if it's major. With the IP blocked, I'd need to see more instances before we put on extended/autoconfirmed protection. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - only trouble is there's nothing to stop him (her?) using a different IP and starting all over again. I've had a difficult day.  Alan  (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but that gives a good reason to protect the page. Quite often a block of a single IP is better than removing edits from all IPs. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Nationalities

Why do we keep referring to the like of "England's Mark Selby" or Scotland's John Higgins"? I don't see the need for this, since all of our articles are awash with flags, and, in any case, the players' wikilinks always give the nationalities. I have therefore removed these from the article.  Alan  (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe that this is common practice in news articles referring to the world championship and its players. I don't see a problem with adhering to the sources. Storm0005 (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

That may well be so, but that wasn't my point. Wikipedia articles are not news articles as such, and news articles do not have hundreds of little flags (giving players' nationalities) all over them as our pages do. Also, if you "hover" over Ronnie O'Sullivan (for instance) a pop-up tells you that he's English, just in case you're from another planet and didn't know that.  Alan  (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally I see no point at all in adding it unless it's relevant to the context. Why not the "left-handed Judd Trump". Maybe when describing a specific shot it might be relevant to mention that a player is left-handed but otherwise it isn't. Similarly for nationalities. To me its just putting undue stress on something that's not very important. Whether news sources use this style is surely not the issue. We're an encyclopedia and should use an encyclopedic style. Nigej (talk) Nigej (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes it is nice for colour, there's only so many times someone can read "X beat Y". Sometimes it's nice to comment on a nationality if it's relevant (like an all-Wales final, etc), or if the nationality is specifically notable. We shouldn't just put it there on a whim though. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough - If there had only been a couple I would have left it alone. There were more than a dozen of these unnecessary mentions of nationality that I removed. It also had Fergal down as Irish twice.  Alan  (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

So you've retained that Brecel was the first world champion from mainland Europe while deleting as "unnecessary" any mention of his being Belgian? In a section that deals with Fergal O'Brien's retirement, you delete any mention of his being Irish, even though the WPBSA itself notes that he was "one of Ireland’s leading players for much of his career"?

More broadly, pruning articles of anything "unnecessary" is a good way to ensure that they become robotic and boring to read, when ideally they should engage a general audience beyond those already familiar with snooker as well as those pursuing a newfound interest in it. Occasional mentions of players' nationalities can (a) add detail and colour, such as that six Welsh players reached the Crucible this year (nowhere mentioned), and (b) convey how a sport that was once almost entirely dominated by British players has broadened to become a global sport with global viewership. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you at all. As I said, if there had only been a few mentions then I wouldn't have bothered, but there seemed, to me, to be too many of these. Feel free to put some of the more notable ones back in if you like.  Alan  (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Surely it all depends on context. In "The Belgian Luca Brecel made a break of x", the fact that he's Belgian is not relevant. However it would be ok to say "the Belgian Luca Brecel lost in first round, one of x players from mainland Europe to lose." since the sentence is about nationalities. Nigej (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much that. There's also sometimes where the match itself doesn't have much to make the sentence stand out, so mentioning qualifiers (such as age, nationality, etc) might help. Things like there being a lot of Welsh people is interesting, but there's often a lot of Welsh people. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with what you say, @Lee Vilenski. Adding such details can help a lot in making the prose more interesting and readable. As for the Welsh players, this is only the second time since 1990 that six have reached the Crucible, so it's arguably noteworthy. [They are discussing the high numbers of Welsh players on the BBC this afternoon.] HurricaneHiggins (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and one person's "colour" might be another person's "fluff". We all have to accept that our edits might be seen in a different way by others and may get changed. It's happened to us all. Nigej (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Nigej, the original post states: "I don't see the need for [referring to players' nationalities], since all of our articles are awash with flags, and, in any case, the players' wikilinks always give the nationalities." So this is not just about changing a few things in this article — the editor in question seems to be attempting to set a precedent for removing references to nationalities from all snooker articles, not just this one. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Since you are obviously referring to me, why not say so? "The editor in question" sounds a bit odd. Anyway, I was not trying to set a precedent at all, I just thought there were too many references to nationality in this article. And, as I said earlier, if you want to put them back, then please do so.  Alan  (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying not to personalize this by singling you out; rather, I want to stick to the issue at hand. Anyhow, the way you phrased your post sounded as if you don't want any references to nationalities at all — you deleted over a dozen, curiously leaving only the nationality of Dominic Dale's French girlfriend — when I think the context is always vital to consider. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

You are right - I missed a couple. At the risk of repeating myself, please go ahead and put in the ones you think are necessary.  Alan  (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

That's sort of my point, @Nigej — it all depends on context. But that's why the blanket deletion of all references to players' nationalities, such as appears to have happened here, is a bad idea. Context hasn't been taken into account at all. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:2024 World Snooker Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 23:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 22:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Part of GA Review Circle #18

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

I know what to expect when I review a snooker article from Lee: it's in great shape, maybe featuring one or two odd turns of phrase but invariably loads of commas you don't need. And that's what we have here. Ping me when done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Did you know? If you fancy doing so, I always have plenty of GA nominees to review. Just look for the all-uppercase titles in the Television section. Reviews always appreciated.

Copy changes

Lead

• The event was broadcast domestically in the United Kingdom by the BBC, Eurosport and Discovery+, and by other broadcasters worldwide. CinS for the comma after Discovery+.
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• The defending champion was Luca Brecel who had defeated Mark Selby in the 2023 final Add comma after Brecel
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Background

• It was the 48th consecutive year that the tournament was held at the Crucible, and the 56th successive year that the World Championship had been contested through the modern knockout format. Remove comma CinS
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• The top 16 players in the world rankings were seeded per their standing following the 2024 Tour Championship, and were drawn randomly against the 16 successful qualifiers in the first round. CinS remove comma
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• A bonus of £40,000 was offered for a maximum break made at the Crucible, and £10,000 for a maximum made in the qualifying rounds. CinS
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Summary

• He had previously opted not to enter the 2022 event, and lost in the first qualifying round at the 2023 event. Remove comma CinS
• Bai narrowed her deficit to two frames at 7‍–‍9, and forced a re‑spotted black in the 17th frame after acquiring foul points from a snooker, but Kendrick potted the black to win 10‍–‍7. Remove comma after 7–9 CinS because the subject of the first two verbs is "Bai".
• Former winner Neil Robertson failed to qualify for the main stage for the first time in 20 years, after losing in a deciding frame to Jamie Jones. Another unneeded comma
• Hyphenate "second-longest"
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Trump gained an early lead against Tom Ford, winning four frames in a row, from 2‍–‍2 to 6‍–‍2, and led 11‍–‍5, making seven breaks of above 50. So many commas. Reflow: Trump gained an early lead against Tom Ford; he won four frames in a row, from 2‍–‍2 to 6‍–‍2, and led 11‍–‍5, making seven breaks of above 50.
  • I've just gone ahead and reworded it in a couple sentences for better flow. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Kyren Wilson led O'Connor 10‍–‍6 after the second session of their match, and won three straight frames to win 13‍–‍6., Lisowski missed a frame ball shot on the pink ball to tie the match at 10‍–‍10, but made breaks of 84 and 124 to tie the score at 11‍–‍11., CinS remove comma
• With Allen leading by 62 points, Higgins made a double, followed by a 71 break to win the match 13‍–‍12. Drop comma after "double"
• Trump tied the score at 7‍–‍7 and won frame 15 to lead, before a 115 break by Jones in the final frame of the session tied the score with one session left to play., Jones won the opening frame on the resumption, but went in‑off in the second More CinS
• Maguire commented that he had not had much luck during the match, and that playing on would be "a waste of time". Even more CinS
• Wilson won the first four frames of the match, and was ahead 5‍–‍1, but Higgins won the final two frames of the first session to trail by two frames. Drop the first comma
• he was placed into a snooker, but missed escaping seven times Drop this comma
• Bingham won a 40‑minute 24th frame, but missed a pot on the green ball in frame 25 to allow Jones to lead 14‍–‍11.
• He made a break of 52 in frame five, before compiling a 125 century in frame six and a 90 in frame seven to lead 7‍–‍0.
• Wilson won frame 11 with a century break, and took the next frame with a break of 60.
• Jones attempted a double, but left the black
• Wilson won the next frame with a 50 break, and also won frame 21 after Jones played a poor break‑off shot
• Wilson made a break of 87 in the next frame, and capitalised on a missed pot on the yellow by Jones to lead 15‍–‍10 before the final session.
  • I've gone through all of the comma details. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing and spot checks

147 refs? Now that's a maximum break! ;) This is a new style of spot check review for me.

• I never even noticed it was 147! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewed: 5, 11, 30, 46, 53, 64, 67, 71, 87, 91, 101, 127, 128, 130, 132

Action required:

• 11: This ref seems to need another one for the match summary/score, probably an invocation of something already used, as the article predates the match.
  • Yeah, that source was only ever there to talk about the Crucible curse. I've removed the bit about him not breaking it, which is covered in depth later. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Earwig flags the Guardian sportsmanship quote, but that's a quote. It also flags some of the century break numbers, but that's to be expected as pure statistics.

Images

All the images except the poster are libre licensed, and the poster has an NFUR. All have alt text (I added it to one of the missing ones). I wish just the logo were available but I guess that is not the case.

• • Thanks for this review. I'll go through this as soon as I can. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Should be good to go Sammi Brie. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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