Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1991–92 snooker world rankings/archive1

1991–92 snooker world rankings

Featured list candidates/1991–92 snooker world rankings/archive1

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another in the series. Unfortunately the sources for this one lack the full detail that was published for previous years, and in fact they contain some errors (which I've kept in, fearing that I would otherwise be accused of original research). As Stephen Hendry won half of the 18 tournaments that contributed to the rankings, no surprise that he had a substantial lead over everyone else. As ever, all improvement suggestions are welcome. I can provide the relevant extracts from offline sources to reviewers on request. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by LeeV

I couldn't find much to worry about so I'm being a bit picky.
Mike Hines(originally - space missing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Higgins had 25 ranking points deducted from his 1989–90 total and was banned for the 1990–91 by the WPBSA following a disciplinary inquiry and fell from 97th to 120th - whilst this is true, it doesn't quite explain that he had ALL of his points removed and then was given no way to get any more. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Will address this soon. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]

I like the table, but (especially on mobile) it's not super easy to tell which column is the one which the points are in. Maybe we should highlight that column? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but we'd need to add a non-colour based indicator too, for accessibility. I'll see what other reviewers think. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more colscopes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Morra pipes to a redirect. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a succession box AND a template? If we had a succession box, I'd rather it was at the top.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These have been at the bottom in all lists going back to the 1976–77 one; during that review, ChrisTheDude commented that "I've never seen an article where a "preceded by/succeeded by" template was placed centrally at the top, it looks odd to me. I would put it at the bottom as is by far the norm." this is the first time I've has the question about whether both are needed, I'll see what other reviewers think. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by that. Having a succession box floating centrally above the lead like this just looks really weird to me. I've never seen anything like it on any other article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose if you liken it to infoboxes, they often have a next/previous for navigation. I don't know why you'd want a succession box directly above the full list of articles. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]