Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2022/April

Sports rivalries

Was anyone aware that List of sports rivalries#Cue sports existed? I feel like what we currently have is very lacking. Anyone have any ideas? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

No I wasn't either. Personally I'm not a fan of this stuff. Seems somewhat artificial to me. Surely there's rivalries between players all the time. The few times it turns into a bit of "needle" can be covered by the biographies. Nigej (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Surprised the Alex Higgins/Dennis Taylor rivalry isn't on there. Or maybe death threats don't count as rivalries? Betty Logan (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. It's either a cull or improve situation for me. I know tennis has a lot of these articles such as Djokovic–Nadal rivalry. This seems more like the players just happened to play a lot of finals, so realistically, Hendry/White, Trump/Robertson and Higgins/O'Sulllivan would be the main culprits. I don't know what to do really. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid Tennis is awash with this stats stuff. Every reason for us to avoid it IMO. Nigej (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

No reason to have that section there imo. You could contrive any situation to be a rivalry in snooker. Notable rivalries between players are generally described on the individual players where this was a thing (eg Allen, Murphy, Bingham and Maguire). --CitroenLover (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

List of records

Never seen this article before - List of snooker records and statistics. Looks pretty dreadful. Any thoughts? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea for an interesting overview and could be informative for non-snooker enthusiasts, but I fully agree with your sentiments regarding the layout. Has potential but needs a lot of work. Steveflan (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I like the idea as well, but definitely requires updates to make it useful as an actual article (plus, it would need significant numbers of citations for people saying its a record). -- CitroenLover (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

2018 Masters (snooker) Suggestion

Would someone more wiki-literate than me like to fix the errors at 2018 Masters (snooker)? (See footnotes 11 and 12 there). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Good work. I tried to "fix" them before, but I should have just done some culling. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Rodney Baggins! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Results tables

The reviewer for the Good Article nomination for Tony Meo, Kingsif, has commented "I know those tables are the standard of snooker articles, but it's very hard to understand because of its size. The legend being so extensive and at the bottom doesn't help. I don't know how to resolve it entirely, but moving the legend above the table should help. Could the different kinds of ranking tournaments also be given separate tables?" (see Talk:Tony Meo/GA1.) Any views on how we could improve tables, or whether any changes are needed? Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

They really need a redesign but it's a massive effort. Personally I'm not happy with the LQ 1R 2R 3R aspect. Sometimes 1R might be the last-128 but other times it might be the last-32 or whatever. There's also been some confusion about which rounds were qualifiers. eg for Tony Meo we have 1R for him in the 1984 Grand Prix (snooker) but for Willie Thorne we have 3R even though he lost at the same stage. For the 1985 Grand Prix (snooker) we have Meo as 3R when it was actually the second round at Reading, the last-64 round being played at Bristol. Willie lost a Bristol but has a 1R. I'd rather go for L128 L64 L32 L16. Clearly there's also sometimes an issue with the tables being too wide as well as too long, eg Steve Davis. Whether we've got the effort to sort all this out I'm doubtful. Nigej (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The thing for me is that we should really come up with a best solution, rather than worry about the articles being consistent. If we needed everything to be consistent, we are saying that we need to update 2,000-3000 articles. That would pretty much mean we have no option but to retain the status quo. However, if we come up with a good solution, we can do these on an article by article basis. I don't think any of us believe the current solution is very good for a few reasons

1. As Nigej says, the rounds are ambigious, first round might mean that they did incredibly well, or mean they couldn't have done any worse.
2. Sourcing issues. On a couple articles where I've tried to source these, there are no sourcing, so we've had to concoct a source from snooker.org, which only goes back fully until the early 2000s. The Eric Hayton book on cue sports can be used for earlier events. I would suggest a row (similar to the one at Steve Davis) that cites these per year using the sources. Snooker.org actually produces a list across all of it's seasons, such as this for Sunny Akani. Using wikidata, we can autogenerate these. Even if we didn't come up with a new table design, I feel a template to generate these would be clever.
3. The tables are very long, with an awful lot of very small events on the list. I don't know if it makes more sense to split them, so we are talking about ranking events, non-ranking events, and defunct events. We have a weird "Former non-ranking tournaments" list, which is a bit off to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Lee. I don't think there's so many of these, there's 314 instances of the phrase "Performance and rankings timeline". Agree about "Former". How is "Former" relevant for Tony Meo when he retired 25 years ago? Former when he retired or what? Also agree that we don't need so many of the non-ranking events, especially since a lot of the minor-ranking events are generally missed out completely. Mark Selby won 7 minor-ranking events but I'm struggling to find any in his table. It's not sensible to try to be comprehensive. Nigej (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it as few as that? I had assumed all our articles had these tables on (although, now I think about it, we only have 2,000 or so snooker articles, so I was well off). 315 is still a lot to do in one go, if it's in depth, but I'd rather we had a best version of these tables, and fix them as and when we see them. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree that a solution for these tables is needed. They're a monolithic mess to edit and as raised before, have many issues. As a starting point, to preserve whats already there, we should probably split up the table into 3 sections: ranking tournaments, non-ranking tournaments and former tournaments.

The problem I see is when you have someone like Ronnie O'Sullivan who has been on tour for 3 decades and you have long ass colspans for "Tournament Not Held", which is impossible to read, nor is it useful to know that a tournament didn't exist prior to a specific season.

Using wikidata would help solve all our problems and centrally manage the information, but arguably it would be duplicating already available information from snooker.org. --CitroenLover (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for comments so far. Do we scrap the tables enirely, as too crufty? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I've had a go at putting tournaments like the UK Championship, British Open and Canadian Masters each in one row at User:BennyOnTheLoose/sandbox4. Shame about untidy footnotes, but is this better than having them in multiple rows? (If so, I'll finish this job for Meo}. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

What tournaments shall we omit? Books (CueSport, Rothmans Yearbook) exclude Pot Black and other 1 or 2 frame events. How about tournaments with less than a certain number of participants? One offs? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that L128 etc. would always be more useful than round lost - without context like how many entrants (eg. how to compare the days when there were over 500 professionals to today or to the 70's/early 80's?) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I prefer sourcing by row rather than season in tables but will abide by a consensus. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I think it should be culled. We are talking about in some cases, as many as 50 different tournaments. Looking towards other similar sports, we don't havd results summary for all little tournaments. I think, at the very least, we should cull the non-ranking tournaments. Even though some aren't minor, they don't give the reader any more information. I think the big reason why these tables still exist is because some people will come to see how a player progressed, but I don't see why this is something we should be keeping on Wikipedia. I think it's a WP:NOSTATS issue. The players ranking itself is important, and I can see why you might be able to make an argument for the ranking tournaments each year. At least this way we would be making sure we aren't describing a load of non important articles. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Gotta say, things like Special:Diff/1067908428 don't make me want to keep them. Do we even have any rules or documentation? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I notice that there's a series of templates here {{Tournament table templates}} which could potentially be useful. See eg Joe Cullen (darts player)#Performance timeline. If someone reaches the quarter-final you use "{{TournQF|2006 UK Championship}}" instead of "align="center" style="background:#ffebcd;" | [[2006 UK Championship|QF]]" and it provides a standard symbol/colour/etc across all articles. Of course, it doesn't affect the fundamental issues here, like whether we should have them at all. Nigej (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You are right, although realistically any issues we have currently aren't due to the size, but more the sourcing and content. I'd be happy if we did use a template rather than formatting (probably could be done with AWB with a clever regex), but still, I don't think that most non-ranking tournaments are suitable for such a table. The darts articles use a similar formatting to snooker, although I think a lot of that is because SMcCandlish wrote a lot of the early MOS and used cue sports articles as suggested formatting (thanks for all the hard work getting that down originally, btw).

I, however, have found the darts articles to be badly formatted in a lot of ways (such as the repeat tables/results at 2022 PDC World Darts Championship, the representation fields, the feature cruft that makes its way into these articles). I feel like if we did still want to retain these tables that we would be better to create an ideal solution with row and column scopes, a better key and consistent formatting. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I've created a bit of a trial at User:Lee Vilenski/sandbox using scopes and such based on Chris Melling (pool player). It looks a bit poop, but I'll keep working. I do think it's causing more harm than good to keep these tables, and the only thing is that I as much as anybody use them to follow player's progress. The question to be answered is: should Wikipedia be the place for that information?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we should consider a different way of presenting info, something along the lines of combining the performance and rankings timeline and the finals tables? That's more like how info appears in books like Rothmans yearbooks and the CueSport one. I've sketched out the idea at User:BennyOnTheLoose/sandbox2. At the moment I think we're trying to cram too much info into the performance and rankings timeline, e.g. about whether a tournament ran in a particular season, and what it was previously known as. I also think that the division between ranking and non-ranking is probably unhelpful, especially for players who were around before the mid-70s, who have their world championship record in more than one place. (Maybe we could have a symbol to denote ranking events in the more listified format?) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

2021–22 Q Tour

Hi! Anyone know what the strike through on player names is for at 2021–22 Q Tour? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

They were the players in the top-48 of the Q School Order of Merit who chose not to enter the Q-Tour and were replaced by those further down the OoM to make up the 48. Nigej (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that seems like a terrible way to deal with it. Perhaps we should use †, with a key rather than strike through, like they'd died. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably we don't need these lists at all. Listing who was eligible and who didn't enter is probably overly detailed at this level. The interest here is in those who did enter and had some success, which is covered by other sections. Nigej (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose. I didn't know if there was a reason why we were mentioning participants. I'll maybe have a look at this one in the offseason Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I think perhaps there might have been a certain interest at the start, but now we've got nearly to the end I suspect that the 48 names are of little interest to readers. At this level the only interest is in those get a tour place or perhaps those who just miss out. Nigej (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Events for snooker season articles

There's been a bit of edit warring at 2021–22 snooker season (amongst other places) about which events should be included in the calendar. We recently suggested (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2021/July#2019 Haining Open et al.) that the Haining Open, and other small time events are not suitable for individual articles. An IP is suggesting that we include this event, as well as other independent events in the calendar section of our snooker season articles. Any thoughts? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with adding non-Main Tour, non-Seniors Tour and non-Womens Tour events to this article and other articles. Otherwise, if we add other events not part of these tours, the page will be filled up with every snooker event in existence, which is not feasible to maintain in the long term. Tournaments like the championship league should be documented because WST sanctions them for the world ranking list, despite not being run by WST, so they’re relevant here. A tournament that wasn’t open to any main tour players shouldn’t be added to the page, the same reason we don’t add every tournament just for amateur players here, those things hsould be on a separate article so they can be maintained and documented independently of the main tour. CitroenLover (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm against including the recent editions in the main calendar, which should be limited to the most important events. Events like the Haining Open are clearly worth an article but that doesn't mean all editions of the Haining Open should appear in the calendar, only those that are sufficiently important, which in this case means 2014 and 2015. Nigej (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

People talking about not adding "non-Main Tour, non-Seniors Tour and non-Womens Tour events", so are we also not going to add the upcoming Q-Tour events, like we did the previous Challenge Tour events? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8085:7160:3B80:CD96:D500:1808:262 (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of including that either; although an article covering the Q-Tour as a whole is probably warranted. The Haining Open is similar, but even less in structure, as it isn't a qualification event for the snooker tour, it's a simple one-off event played each year. There are hundreds of them each year. We don't include the English Amateur Championship, even though that is a qualification event and is notable for each tournament. We should be stricter in what we label as being relevant snooker events, rather than allowing any old event to be included. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that having on an article on this season's Q-Tour would be definitely worthwhile. What we don't need is a highly detailed article on each event. There's a good middle ground where the tour has an article in which the individual events are described. Nigej (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd work similar to how we've expanded 2019–20 Challenge Tour, which probably warrants a mention on the season article, but certainly not something for each individual event. The Haining Open is I'm sure very similar to a single event in one of these series, I don't really see why it would be suitable for that article. It would fit better in our "X in cue sports" articles, such as 2020 in cue sports. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, then it seems like these articles should just be for the "Main Tour" events. You don't want to include the Haining Open or Q-Tour events, but want to list the woman's events, that are red-linked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8085:7160:3B80:DC5C:8475:3716:5C3F (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Personally I'm not keen on having the women's or senior's events in it either. I'd rather have them noted in separate sections. Why not a separate section called "Women's snooker" with a paragraph or two about the season? Similarly for the seniors. They don't need a table at all, just some text. Nigej (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

There are only a tiny number of tournaments on the Womens and Seniors tours anyway and they only ever happen in gaps between the main tour events, so I don't mind them being in the main table since separate sections would be very small for not much benefit.

As for womens tour events being red links, those tournaments have only been added since this season, they aren't on the table for any previous season, so I don't mind someone going back through some previous seasons and adding them to the respective tables for consistency.

Agree to Q-Tour having its own article. Doesn't need the excessive detail we use on the main tour, but one page for each "season" of Q-Tour and a section for each tournament containing a summary of each tournament and a subpage for the draw of each would be more than sufficient for coverage of that. --CitroenLover (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd very much agree that the separate tours should have their own sections in the article on the snooker season. Replace the calendar with the list of events, and segregate per tour. Realistically, there should be a 2020-21 World Snooker Tour article which is summarised in 2020-21 snooker season, but also includes other events, tours etc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree the Haining Open should be included in the current snooker season as it has been included every other year. The only reason it was effected this year was due to COVID restrictions. There is too much emphasis on main tour events only as independently ran events were always added to the calendar. General Cup, Hainan Classic etc these were independently promoted and added. Seniors should stay on the calendar also Kentbobo (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Mark Selby won the Haining Open two years in a row in 2017, 2018. Un-Nooh won it in 2019 all these wins are listed on the WST players profile career wins page so they should stay and remain on each season's calendar as that is the official source that counts. Haining and Seniors should stay but I think QTour and the women's events should have their own section Kentbobo (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The snooker calendar should not just be limited to main tour sanctioned events. The Paul hunter classic in 2019 was a Snookerstars promoted event but that is included. Again check WST and WPBSA players profiles. This is clear evidence for there inclusion Kentbobo (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Nice to see a new user interested in the snooker project! You should note that saying that we should include something because we've included it before, is regarded as a very very weak argument in these sort of discussions. We're discussing what we want, not what we did in the past. Another point is that we're discussing the format of the article. All the events you note can be included in the article, it's just a matter of which events should be in which sections. Whether events are noted in player's profiles doesn't seem too relevant to me. If you look at golfer profiles on the PGA Tour (as an example) you'll see that they often mention wins that were not on their tour, but that doesn't mean that we should include them as PGA Tour events. Also, personally I can't see any reason for including seniors events in the main schedule but not the womens. They seem very minor to me in their current setup. See World Seniors Tour which lists all the seniors events neatly and clearly in one article. I don't see why we need to clutter the main schedule with these few minor events. We've had a user in the past who was keen on very garish colours for these events which made the main schedule look even worse! Generally it's a good idea not to use colours at all in tables, only for very specific reasons. Always bear in mind that people are using many different types of device nowadays and what looks good to you might look terrible to them. Nigej (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

David Lilley (snooker player)

Hi WikiProject members – following Lilley's impressive run to the final qualifying round for this year's World Championship, I browsed his article to look up his previous history in qualifying. His results table indicates he was a losing qualifier in 2002 and 2005, but the qualifying results on the corresponding articles don't list him. Could anybody with access to the results have a look? Cheers, and enjoy the tournament when it starts! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

David Lilley did indeed play in these World Championships. In 2002, he was knocked out in Amateur pre-qualifying (the Wikipedia article only shows the results for Round 7 of Amateur pre-qualifying) and David was knocked out in the fourth round by Timothy Paling 5:3. In the 2005 tournament he was again knocked out in Amateur pre-qualifying (the Wikipedia article only shows the Professional qualifying results). David beat Gary Thomson 5:4, and then defeated Jimmy Robertson 5:1 before losing 3:5 to Stuart Mann. Steveflan (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. We do have to be a bit careful on to what depths we go into with "pre-qualifying" as there used to be lots of amateur qualifying rounds. For brevity and sourcing's sake, we generally only include the professional qualification (and perhaps a single pre-qualifying round, if it's easy to source). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks; I had a feeling there may have been some pre-qualifying rounds. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Photo parameter in Wikiproject tag

Hi guys, I've added a tag to {{WikiProject Snooker}} for |needs-photo. I'm planning on doing a bit of a scour to find people with images of players, but I need a large enough list of people who do not have one. If you see a page that doesn't have a single photograph, please add |needs-photo=yes into the template on the talk page. This will generate them into the list at Category:Snooker articles requesting photographs. I've added one at Talk:Jackson Page for a demo. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Score in the 1972 World Snooker Championship final

Hi all, there seems to some discrepancy between sources about whether the final score was 37-32 or 37-31 in the 1972 World Snooker Championship final. I've created a section at Talk:1972 World Snooker Championship where this can be discussed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"Variant" format events

Hey all. We have separate sections in the both the performance timelines and the career finals for "variant" format events (such as Six-reds and Shoot-out).

While it is clear that these are played under different rules than standard snooker rules, they still fall under the bracket of non-ranking events by virtue of not carrying any ranking points. I'm not sure that a separate "variant" section is needed for just one or two events and cutting this out could reduce a little bit of cruft.

Does anyone have any objections to just sweeping the variant format events (Six-red World Championship, Shoot-Out, Tenball etc.) into the non-ranking sections of both the performance timelines and career finals sections? If not I'm happy to make the changes. Example of how Mark Davis' Non-ranking finals section would look below:

Non-ranking finals: 10 (8 titles)

Outcome	No.	Year	Championship	Opponent in the final	Score
Winner	1.	1996	Malta Masters	John Read	6–3
Winner	2.	2002	Merseyside Professional Championship	Stephen Maguire	5–2
Winner	3.	2002	Benson & Hedges Championship	Mehmet Husnu	9–6
Runner-up	1.	2003	Merseyside Professional Championship	Stephen Maguire	1–5
Winner	4.	2009	Six-red World Championship	Mark Williams	6–3
Winner	5.	2012	Six-red World Championship (2)	Shaun Murphy	8–4
Winner	6.	2013	Six-red World Championship (3)	Neil Robertson	8–4
Winner	7.	2013	General Cup	Neil Robertson	7–2
Runner-up	2.	2015	Championship League	Stuart Bingham	2–3
Winner	8.	2016	World Seniors Championship	Darren Morgan	2–1

Andygray110 (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I think a lot of this relates to user DF147 (now blocked) who had the very strong view that there was a big different between a non-ranking event and a variant event. Apparently things like the shoot-out are not variant events but the six-reds are, while things like tenball and power snooker were not snooker at all. Personally I could never really see all this, so I'd be happy with your suggestion. At the end of the day, we don't really have a definition for each category anyway. Nigej (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Also relates to the "non-ranking" wins in the infobox, which was of great importance to DF147 but which I could do without personally, as being unreferenced and arbitrary. Nigej (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd also agree - also team events. If it's vaguely snooker (and not specifically pool, like Drago or Selby have won), then it's either ranking, or non-ranking. All events are "variants" as they have different amount of frames, and often have a different dress code. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with these changes. Firstly, being easily able to identify senior events, and secondly why still a different colour for the women's events? They're (professionally) non-ranking, but are ranking for the women's tour/rankings. So are they ranking events or not? It's all a bit messy.

HOWEVER, if you are going to make this change you actually have to get rid of the colour code underneath the calendar on the season pages, such as 2020–21 snooker season, which still has the red code bar for senior events. Looks a bit stupid. 2A02:8085:7160:3B80:6495:86AF:F4FA:7138 (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is about the player articles. I think we need a separate discussion if you want to discuss the season articles. Nigej (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, somebody (Andygray110) has been changing the season articles, so I thought a discussion had already taken place. If this not the case, and a consensus has not been reached on this issue, should those changes be reverted? 2A02:8085:7160:3B80:6495:86AF:F4FA:7138 (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably not, since they are consistent with this discussion. However, you introduced points about "(professionally) non-ranking", women's events and seniors events which are not really relevant here. A new discussion would be better on these topics. Nigej (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd probably have the women's and seniors events down under amateur finals, as they are amateur events. Feel free to update the keys if they are no longer valid.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so just three colours then? One for professional ranking, one for professional non-ranking, and one for ALL other amateur events (including seniors, women's, and the Q-Tour)? It would look a lot better, let's do that. 37.228.241.1 (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above was broadly about correlating all non-ranking events under one umbrella and primarily revolved around performance and ranking timelines and career titles sections. However it would have been inconsistent not to have also updated the season articles. A question was asked (at 08:35, 22 April 2022) should my edits be reverted - consensus was not reached on that, however you went ahead and reverted them. I am not going to get engaged in a potential edit war over this as I have been at Wikipedia for too long to get embroiled in WP:ILIKEIT arguments, but I would point out that using the revert function to undo my edits is not appropriate particularly when those edits were consistent with the discussion and consensus was reached, and no consensus was reached on either your decision to revert or your colour scheme going forward (reverting other changes and saying "let's do that" in response to your own alternative is not building consensus). I have no objection to your changes but it would be more appropriate (as Nigej pointed out) if you made these changes to the articles by opening a new discussion on these topics so that we can reach consensus together and update articles in a consistent fashion rather than overriding each other's edits. Andygray110 (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I would just like to say i think Power Snooker and Tenball should be added as under the banner Other Cue Sports. Unlike the other tournaments mentioned above these two do not have the same scoring system as snooker and are hybrids of Pool. Power Snooker had power zones, double points, quadruple points and time penalties. Tenball also had different scoring systems with one ball counting as 10 points and another part of the scoring was that the first colour potted was the number of points used for every colour potted in the frame. The highest break possible was 200. A bit like the Pool finals section in Mark Selby's page these should not be in the non-ranking list as they are different cue sports not snooker. Seniors events are counted as professional wins as the World Seniors Champion is invited to the Champion of Champions and these wins are listed on the BBC and Eurosport for/in players profiles. 178.167.189.33 (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

If it looks like snooker, and quacks like snooker, and people treat it like snooker, it's snooker. I don't think we need to say these aren't snooker events. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

But it does not look like snooker, people do not treat it like snooker and it does not score like snooker. Who identifies Tenball with snooker ?. It has no involvement with the sport whatsoever. We could say it quacks more like pool ?. They are different cue sports which has been stated on their wikipages and other sources. These tournaments are not listed on the World Snooker Tour profile pages for the winners of these events. whereas the winners of the six-reds snooker tournaments are listed in the players non-ranking sections. Again i suggest other cue sports section or something of the like 178.167.189.33 (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

To me, a cue-sport where you make breaks going red, colour, red, colour is a snooker variant, even if there's extra balls/less balls/etc. Nigej (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

If you change an article to not say "snooker", and say "cue sports" and then suggest we make that change wholesale by pointing to it saying cue sports on the article, your argument holds so little weight. Tenball is snooker with an extra ball. Power snooker has the name of the sport in the title. I feel like this has been brought up a hundred times over such little amount of events. Under career finals, I feel like either it's a ranking event (well defined), non-ranking (professional, also well defined), and amateur (all other events). Variant and team events are just either non-ranking if they are professional events, or amateur. Same for women's events, same for seniors events.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)