Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2022/February

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

Hi! I recently merged Snooker world ranking points 2019/2020 into Snooker world rankings 2019/2020. There was an WP:RM, but had no involvement, so I did the merge per WP:SILENCE. There has been a little bit of talk on the talk page regarding how we should manage these sets of articles.

The issues I have, is that we have two articles for each season, but they cover the same topic. One has a table for the ranking positions, whilst the other is for the points scored. This can easily be one article, as I've shown on the article above. The issue, as pointed out by Betty Logan is that the points articles are a series, so they no longer have continuity. Here's three options for what we can do.

1) Merge the lot. There's quite a lot of work for this, but it would be my favoured position. The arguments above are just as true in the 1980s articles, especially as those articles only show a smaller number of players.

2) Merge later seasons, retain the earlier ones. If we merged the 2020-21 and later seasons, it would give an ending point to the series. This would be with the previso that we could later merge earlier seasons.

3) retain just this one season. I think there is a lot of apathy to these tables, in that once they are created they have little required to update them. I like creating high-quality articles, which is why I wanted to create a featured list on this specific season. But, if we don't want higher quality articles, there may not bee a need to merge these.

I'd also like to thank anyone who worked on these articles in the past, I know Betty always updates these, and I saw Nigej and BennyOnTheLoose working on some old season tables in the past. Let me know what you'd like to do, and I'll put some effort into getting through these. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I would add that these options are not entirely mutually exclusive. Everyone will agree that option 1 is the best solution, but the immense workload means that it might not be completed for several years. Option 2 does not preclude option 1: merge 2020/21, 21/22 and just create one article for all subsequent seasons i.e. a reverse fork. This would have the advantage of reducing the future workload because we would only be creating and updating one article for future seasons, as opposed to two. Then if editors want to proceeed with merging the earlier articles then a systematic approach would be to work backwards i.e. 2018/19, then 2017/18 and so on, until the points articles are fully phased out. Betty Logan (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't really know what we should do with these articles tbh. Arguably, I like the idea of merging them, but I don't like the idea of inconsistency between pages (just as much reason as to why I did not like the inconsistency in the lead about sponsors, as otherwise it leads to edit wars when one side wants one format, and the other side wants another format). If we are going to merge them, it should apply to all articles: as said, once the season is over, the pages effectively become pseudo-locked, in that while they are not locked from edits, no one edits them anyway since its historical information.

That being said, the new table format used on the suggested page for rankings at the seeding cutoffs doesn't look good. I would prefer one table for all revisions, rather than cutting it off at a random part. Also, player names should probably be formatted with the flagathlete, since all previous pages in the series include the players' sporting country.

Overall, I am ambivalent to the formatting of these pages, but consistency should be key for them and, where possible, should be retroactively applied so as not to confuse readers as to why the format suddenly changes mid-way through reading them in a series. I don't think these pages should be overhauled for the purposes of a designation of GA or FA though: there's little benefit to these articles being marked in such ways. --CitroenLover (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue with the table is that they are so incredibly long they need to be split. Happy for a different suggestion for this. I don't really see what we gain from having nationalities for the ranking lists. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

For the earlier articles we have a slightly confusing situation at the moment. When BennyOnTheLoose and I were working on the old rankings we produced one article per year (there clearly isn't enough to warrant two). See eg Snooker world rankings 1985/1986 which lists the rankings used in 1985/86, and shows how the points were gained (up to the end of 1984/85). However Snooker world rankings 2008/2009 list the rankings used that season (Ronnie top on 50450) but to find how Ronnie's 50450 was obtained, you have to look at Snooker world ranking points 2007/2008. So merging Snooker world rankings 2008/2009 with Snooker world ranking points 2008/2009 would from my perspective be confusing to readers. They would see the rankings used for that season but a set of calculations used for the rankings for the following season. So I'm thinking that the once-a-year rankings (pre about 2010) need treating in a different way to the umpteen-changes-a-year system we have now. In summary, I would certainly recommend merging them while we had the once-a-year system (although that only covers 4 seasons I think), by merging eg Snooker world rankings 2008/2009 with Snooker world ranking points 2007/2008. Nigej (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that's why originally I only wanted to tackle the one article! Can these articles not give a summary of how the points were calculated from the previous year? Considering we currently have a two-year system. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a quick update - Snooker world rankings 2019/2020 is now an FL rated article, so it looks like the formatting and such is deemed as fine (at least for this occasion). I don't want to tackle too many (I have a lot of projects going on), but can I confirm we are ok to dispense with a merge request for individual events (at least for ones post-2008) and do when I have time? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I actually merged Snooker world ranking points 2005/2006 into Snooker world rankings 2006/2007, per my suggestion above, about a month ago. Haven't got round to doing any more. Nigej (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I'll make a start soon. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)