Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2023/November

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.

I've been doing some work on the List of snooker referees, but I have (so far) been unable to find out who officiated at the World Finals for the following years:

• 1930 - 1932 inclusive,
• 1935 - 1939 inclusive,
• 1947 - 1956 inclusive,
• 1964 - 1968 inclusive,
• 1970 and 1971,
• 1973 - 1975 inclusive.

For 1933 the referee seems to have been a Mr. A. Marshall, but I can't find any reference for, or information about, this individual.

The same goes for Mr. T. B. Leng in 1946 and Mr. S. A. de-Gruchy in 1957.

Any information, along with references if possible, would be much appreciated.

Alan. AlH42 (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Trying to find any information about referees prior to 1976 is giving me a headache!

I've got some unreliable information (cuetracker) that the 1975 final was refereed by John Williams and that both '73 and '74 were officiated by Bill Timms (can't find anything about him either), and I can't find any references from reliable sources.

Given that nobody has responded to my original post, I'm assuming that there is no more data available.

This is a shame because the list of World Championship finals in the Triple Crown article goes back to 1969 (the start of the "modern" era) and is only missing the referee data for 1970, 71, 73, 74 and 75.

Help please! Alan. AlH42 (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Good luck with finding that out! I don't think even The Billiard Player or Snooker Scene always mentioned the referee. But I found it was Charles Chambers for 1937. Looks like it probably was Bill Timms in 1973 and 1974 but I don't think this cutting is 100% proof. According to Morrison's Who's Who in Snooker, John Williams first refereed the final in 1978. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Benny. Unfortunately those links don't work for me, but I'll take your word for it. I couldn't use the URLs in references anyway as they would need to be accessable. As for John Williams, he definitely did 1976 as he had to take over from Bill Timms when he was taken ill. The 1976 World Snooker Championship article explains this in some detail. I'm going to give up for now. I need a drink! Alan. AlH42 (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you need to register for The Wikipedia Library access to be able to see the cuttings. I didn't know that. It's a really useful resource, not just for Newspapers. I should have recalled about 1976, it wasn't long ago I was working on the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources for 1933 do state A. Marshall, but I can't help wondering if it was really Arthur Goundrill, who refereed the Billiards Championship that year. There's a few paragraphs about T.B. Leng in The Billiard Player, June 1946, pages 6-7: He spent about 15 years as a sailor from the age of 13; he once broke 22 bones in a fall from the top of a ship and was hospitalised for 49 weeks, the first two while unconscious; he flew and drove for leisure; and he ran his own snooker club, The Beaufort, in Lisle Street, London; he donated all his refereeing fees to Charing Cross Hospital. S. A. de-Gruchy was a vice-president of the Jersey Billiards Association. (Pulman wins world snooker title". Jersey Evening Post. 15 April 1957. p. 4). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting stuff Benny!

I've added Bill Timms and S.A. De-Gruchy to the list, and will also add A. Marshall (for 1933) at some stage, unless your theory about Arthur Goundrill comes to anything.

With regard to T.B. Leng, it sounds like he should have an article all to himself, if more references could be found. The only thing I could find was this photo from 1935. Anyway, I will also add him to the list (for 1946) at some stage.

That is about as far as I can get for now. Alan. AlH42 (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Benny: I see what you mean about Arthur Goundrill. The article for 1933 states 'referee was Mr A Marshall, "the one-arm champion"', but this photo from 1937 indicates that it was Goundrill who was referred to as "the one armed champion". Maybe they were both amputees? Alan. AlH42 (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I've been meaning to attempt an article on Chambers for a while, but I'll defintitely add Leng to my to-do list too - just seen a picture of him in Sunday Pictorial from 1937, playing snooker blindfolded and "by telepathy"! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Benny. Just read your excellent article on Chambers. Can't wait to see your effort about Leng! Alan. AlH42 (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It was really quite touching to read the tributes to Chambers in The Billard Player. You can see him in action here; I'm pretty sure that J.B. Priestley refers to him in the famous essay "At Thurstons" (extract below) but haven't tracked down a good source. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The marker arrived too. He deserves a word to himself. He was an essential part of the afternoon, not merely because he kept the score and called it out, but because he created an atmosphere. He was a young man, whose profile was rather like that of the Mad Hatter; his face was all nose, teeth, and glittering eye; and he had an ecclesiastical dignity and gravity of manner. He handed over the rest of the half-butt like one serving at an altar. To see him place the red on the spot was to realize at once the greatness of the occasion. Best of all was to watch him removing, with his white-gloved hands, specks of dust or films of moisture from a ball. The voice in which he called out the scores was the most impersonal I have ever heard. It was a voice that belonged to solemn ritual, and it did as much as the four walls and the thickly drawn curtained windows to withdraw us from ordinary life and Leicester Square.

BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting stuff Benny. Brilliant video. To referee billiards you need "the patience of a saint". I see you've added 1947 for Leng in the referees list. Good stuff. The ones I'd really like are 1970 and 1971 so that I can complete the TC finals list. I can't find them anywhere.  Alan  (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Couldn't see any mention of the 1970 or 1971 referees in Billiards and Snooker, or anywhere else. I did, though, find "Delicate Bastardry in the 66th Frame" which is about the Spencer/Simpson final, one of the hardest to get any info about. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: I have changed the introduction text for the referees list indicating that 1970 and 1971 data is missing. Maybe this will prompt someone else into finding something on these since I have failed miserably.  Alan  (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

While I've been removing the brackets from past Shoot-Out tournaments (see this discussion), I've also been putting in the referees for the finals, but I can't find the following:

• 1990 Shoot-Out (Morgan v Hallet best-of 3)
• 2011 Snooker Shoot-Out (Bond v Milkins)
• 2012 Snooker Shoot-Out (Hawkins v Dott)
• 2014 Snooker Shoot-Out (Dale v Bingham)
• 2015 Snooker Shoot-Out (White v Xiao)

If anyone has any information about these, please let me know.  Alan  (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to Nigej who sent me some links to YouTube videos.

So I now have:

• 1990 Shoot-Out : No referee data found.
• 2011 Snooker Shoot-Out : Definitely Michaela Tabb (from video)
• 2012 Snooker Shoot-Out : hard to make out from this video - might be Colin Humphries?
• 2014 Snooker Shoot-Out : Definitely Michaela Tabb (from video)
• 2015 Snooker Shoot-Out : hard to make out from this video - might be Brendan Moore?

Can anyone here, with better eyes than mine, confirm (or otherwise) 2012 and 2015?

 Alan  (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I've just had another look at those two YouTube clips, and the 2015 one is definitely Brendan Moore, but I still can't make out who it is in the 2012 one.  Alan  (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: I would love there to be an article about the wonderful John Pellew. I'm unable to research it myself, but I love watching matches with Pellew refereeing, His lovely Welsh accent calling out the scores makes the match.  Alan  (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi guys, while in edit mode in the 2023 European Masters article, if I click on a reference link, I now see this message: "This reference is defined in a template or other generated block, and for now can only be edited in source mode." Also, if I click on Cite and then Re-use, I see the same message listed over and over, which makes it hard to locate a reference I want to cite again. Anyone know what is going on here? I'm not experiencing this problem in other articles. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I assume you are doing "visual" rather than "source" editing. The references are all in a reflist wrapper at the bottom of the page, which makes it easier for maintenance in source mode. See WP:LDRHOW. I hardly ever do visual editing so it's not a problem for me. If you want I could move them all back, but that would take some time.  Alan  (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It's because all of the references are being defined in the reflist. I can move them into the article for you if you'd like. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, guys. Yes, I am using the visual editor rather than the source editor. I don't want to create work for anyone, and the tournament is over in a couple more days anyway, so I can make do. But I'd just note that managing the references this way seems a bit non-standard and creates some degree of frustration for people using the visual editor (which I personally find much handier). HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It's really not much work. I've made the change. Generally list defined references are great for changing the formatting of a series of refs, but can be hard work (especially for VE), so I tend to move them to the body when I'm done afterwards. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Lee! Very much appreciated. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Kaniivel/Reference Organizer is the script that does this, if you were wondering. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Lee. My eyes are glazing over looking at this page, though! I'm not exactly the most technical type. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, you just put user:Kaniivel/Reference Organizer.js (the same as every script) into User:HurricaneHiggins/common.js and it'll load in your browser as a new icon. It'll show up in the drop down menus next to the search bar. You'll find that userscripts are often the only suitable way of doing some awful tasks! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that makes it sound much easier. I'll give it a shot! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

That is a brilliant script Lee, thank you. I just used it on the Class of '92 article that HurricaneHiggins and I have been working on.  Alan  (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a number of good ones out there (see WP:SCRIPT for some details). The ones I mostly use are around reference style, dash formatting and dates, but you can get a script to do most things. If you are trying to do something monotonous, it can probably be done with a script, a bot, or by WP:AWB Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Lee. That's a good tip. I have typically done such things manually, but that is indeed a monotonous chore. I'll check out the scripts and move into the 21st century. :-) HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem, if you need some help, or want some pointers on how to do things, message me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks, Lee. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Is there a script anywhere for replacing those horrible curly quotation marks and apostrophes that MS-Word keeps putting in? I can't find one, and the normal find/replace doesn't seem to work for them.  Alan  (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

When I edit a page here, at the top editing tools bar, on the far right across from "Heading", "Format", etc., I have a search tool (magnifying glass icon) that provides a "Search and replace" pop-up that will distinguish between such characters, and also supports regular expressions. However, I cannot determine what gadget, beta feature, or third-party script is responsible for it. Does anyone else have this feature and know where it comes from?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

When I said "the normal find/replace doesn't seem to work for them", I was referring to the search tool you mention. If you try to search for a curly quote it also finds all the straight ones.  Alan  (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Not on my system; I just tested with “ and it only matched instances of the specific glyph, not ". I only have this "matches them all" problem when using the browser's built-in search function on the page. That said, I'm not sure what the possible problem would be with a search for “ also matching all instances of ", since doing a replace on all of them to " will have no effect on the ones that were already ".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It's working fine now. I have no idea what I was doing wrong before.  Alan  (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I use User:DemonDays64/Scripts/Dumb quotes. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Benny - I'll have a look at that. But the find/replace tool works well.  Alan  (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

There's probably a lot of them. User:Ohconfucius/script/Sources.js fixes a lot of things for me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Lee - I'll have a look at that.  Alan  (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Probably we ought to have a discussion about WP:LIVESCORES and try to form a consensus about whether the wording (and our editing) ought to be changed. Currently it says "The current consensus is to not add visible match or frame scores to an article until the match or tie is completed. Wikipedia should only record the final results of the match ..." I'd say there's been pretty clear consensus over the years not to have live scoring for single-session matches before the final. The main areas of dispute have tended to be about multi-session matches, and the final. In recent times the system has been that we often include the frame scores for the final before the match is completed, and it makes a certain sense to include the interim scores to match the frame scores that have been added. However this is clearly contrary to the "not add visible match or frame scores to an article until the match or tie is completed" wording. The current wording allows editors to add the frame scores but only if they're WP:HIDDEN. Multi-session matches before the final are not common nowadays and that issue only pops-up in a couple of events. Thoughts please, because basically its not a big issue and it's a shame if it causes disputes. Nigej (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we could revisit WP:NOTNP or change the wording in WP:LIVESCORES. If we can get consensus the problem might go away.  Alan  (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking specifically about the wording of LIVESCORES. LIVESCORES itself can refer to more general policies+guidelines that are relevant, including parts of WP:NOT. Nigej (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Was going to suggest this, too. Though I really wish there were enough cohesion between sport-related wikiprojects to extrapolate LIVESCORES and several other features of the Snooker MoS, and the MOS:CUE, into a more generalized MOS:SPORT. A lot of these points really aren't cue-sports or snooker-specific, and the problems they address are rampant at other sorts of sport articles. I don't think I have the patience to try to organize the drafting of a MOS:SPORT, though. I thought about it a decade ago and even then it gave me a headache.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"The devil's in the details" I suspect. Whether we should report the halftime score in a footy match is not necessarily the same as to whether we should have daily reports for the Tour de France. Nigej (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I will note that the current policy is based on the consensus of three editors in May 2010, so probably overdue for a reconsideration. To my mind, it makes common sense to report interim scores at the end of sessions, using italics to indicate that the match has not yet concluded. For most tournaments during the season, only the final is played as a multi-session match, so this change would make little difference to how we handle most events. Where it matters most is obviously the World Championship, where all ties are multi-session matches, typically played over 2 or even 3 days. News sources routinely publish interim scores for such matches — and if there are published articles by the BBC, Eurosport, World Snooker, etc., carrying those interim scores, we should be able to publish them too. On a practical level, when writing up match summaries, I find it much easier to update a match summary after each session, rather than starting to write up a summary only after a multi-day match has concluded. I would therefore strongly support a change to the current policy, in the interests of common sense as well as ease of updating articles. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@HurricaneHiggins: Just to clarify an issue that's come up before. Once the second (or third etc) session I'm wondering what would happen if an editor updated eg 4–4 to 5–4? Would we revert back to 4–4 or remove it completely? If you add any sort of interim score I suspect it'll tempt many editors to then update it frame by frame. Of course we could add some WP:HIDDEN note to tell them not to but ... Nigej (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

For consistency it's probably better not to do ANY updates until matches are completed, including finals and multi-session matches.  Alan  (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@AlH42, this is easier said than done. I personally find it much easier to update match reports after the session reports come out, rather than waiting until the end of a lengthy multi-session match (conceivably after four sessions of a WC semi-final or final) to start piecing together the report. There's a huge difference between reporting on a best-of-7 first-round match at the Northern Ireland open, and a best-of-35-frame World Championship final, and I think it makes a tangible difference to the end quality of the article to be able to do these reports in real time rather than after the fact. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

So that would mean making an exception for multi-session matches only.  Alan  (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@AlH42 If a match is completed in one session — as the vast majority are, outside of tournament finals and the entire World Championship — there is no need for interim scores. So the change would affect multi-session matches only. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd been assuming that the "visible match or frame scores" bit of LIVESCORES only related to the brackets/tables and not to match reporting. We'll need to make that clear too, either way. Personally I'd say that some sourced text giving the end-of-session would be perfectly OK. Clearly the text is intended to remain in the article after th match has finished. That's quite different to a score-line in a bracket/table which will be changed later. Nigej (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I assumed the same. Also - we routinely update century breaks mid-match, since that is the only practical way of getting them right.  Alan  (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I take your point, but this amounts to allowing interim scores in one section of the article but disallowing them in another section of the same article, which many will surely argue is inconsistent? HurricaneHiggins (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

My main argument is that we can add stuff that is intended to remain in the article (eg text, century breaks). We shouldn't be adding interim information that we know is not final. We wait until the century break is over and then add the break, we don't add "100+" during a break. If a "field" in a bracket/table is intended to have the final frame total, there's a good argument that it shouldn't ever have the interim one, even if it's in italics. (Mind you, it's a rule I break myself sometimes) Nigej (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the distinction you're making. I feel less strongly about interim scores in the brackets if we can still post session summaries once articles are available. That said, I think we did do interim scores for the 2022 WC and it worked pretty well. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It is only the interim scores in the brackets or in quali match lists that are the problem. I don't recall anyone writing main text interim scores, except between sessions at the WC.  Alan  (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Right. So I would propose:

• No interim scores to be posted from any match while a session is being played.
• If a match is held over multiple sessions, interim scores can be posted after the session ends, using italics and citing a reputable source.
• Match summaries can also feature interim scores with a reputable source.

This would be a modest but sensible change. Matches that last more than two sessions are rare. This happens only from the second round of the World Championship onward — the second-round and quarter-finals are played over three sessions and the semi-finals and final over four sessions. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds OK except for bulletpoint 2. I've not seen citations inside brackets, and there's not much point since you can cite the WST LiveScores (which is working a bit better now) in "External Links".  Alan  (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair enough about no citations in brackets. The match summary will typically include a link to the WST site, BBC, Eurosport, etc., in any case. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you proposing the same for the "final" table, so we only add frame scores at the end of session and end of match? Nigej (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that would probably be for the best.  Alan  (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that currently works. Is the final table updated on a frame-by-frame basis? HurricaneHiggins (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It has been for the last few events.  Alan  (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that, for finals only, it is reasonable to update the frame scores as they come in from snooker.org which will be already referenced. But we should not put in the actual score until a session is finished, in italics until the match is over. Is that too complicated?  Alan  (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly not complicated. It's just that adding the frame scores will encourage other editors to add the corresponding score. We can tell people not too but that may not work. I'd be inclined to only add the frame scores at the end of the session/match. Nigej (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense.  Alan  (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nigej, I think we had some sort of a pop-up asking people not to update scores until the end of a match. Couldn't it just as people not to update scores before a session concludes? I think it's worth trying. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts are that we should probably update scores when not in play. Our issues are with things being updated and being out of date almost immediately. I'd be fine with updates for multisession matches being updated for match scores only. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: The problem with that is, as Nigej said above, "adding the frame scores will encourage other editors to add the corresponding score." I think it's probably best not to do any updates until a session or match is over, except for century breaks.  Alan  (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

My impression is that we shouldn't allow users going against a policy to effect how it is written. People going around changing articles against policy isn't a good reason to have that policy be written so it's not an issue. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't fully understand your point.  Alan  (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn't write policy around how someone else might respond to it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok - I get your point. But I think we're pretty much agreed in here that we should make a rule that makes it clear that scores should only be updated when a match or a session is over. That should also include not adding frame scores for finals mid-session (as I have been guilty of doing). Century breaks need to be updated as they occur though.  Alan  (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how to edit templates. Can we add birth names to the player infobox template? This is useful especially for players such as Mink Nutcharut. In that case, we can refer to her as "Mink Nutcharut", and move her birth name "Nutcharut Wongharuthai" to the infobox. Another example is Shaun Murphy, I've never heard of his middle name being used, so "Shaun Peter Murphy" is better put in the infobox. This is commonly done for musicians who are commonly known by their stage name, for example. AmethystZhou (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, currently {{Infobox snooker player}} only has the "name" parameter, which is intended to be their common name, eg Shaun Murphy. It would be straightforward to add a "full name" or "birth name" (or whatever) parameter. I suppose an issue (as with so many things that can go in the infobox) is whether we've got sufficient reliable sources to make it worthwhile, or whether we're just opening up a WP:CANOFWORMS. Of course it's common to have such a parameter, but that's not necessarily a good reason for us to follow. Nigej (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't much see the point. If you look at the article for Ronnie O'Sullivan for example, his birth name (Ronald Antonio O'Sullivan) is given as the first words in the lead. Surely that's good enough.  Alan  (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:FULLNAME makes it clear that "the subject's full name, if known, should usually be given in the lead sentence" and generally we do the same for their MOS:BIRTHNAME. So this sort of information needs to be in the lead section. The question is whether we should repeat it in the infobox. Of course that's a general principle of any infobox, it's a summary of what's in the text. Nigej (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

We can do it like the Elton John page, like this: "Ronnie O'Sullivan OBE (born Ronald Antonio O'Sullivan; 5 December 1975[1])". Have the common name Ronnie O'Sullivan as the page name, and put the full name in the infobox. And make it a rule that there needs to be a reliable reference (like a biography article) that includes the full name, birth date, birth place, etc., otherwise only use the common name (first and last only) throughout. AmethystZhou (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

And, by the way, editing templates is no problem, as I discovered when we were doing all that work on nicknames.  Alan  (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This template is only "semi-protected". Many infoboxes are fully protected which means that you have to put in an edit request on the talk page, to be processed by an admin or similar. Nigej (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Birth names should not be moved out of the article body into the infobox. Infoboxes are optional summaries of key facts from an article, and the facts need to remain in the article, since various WP:REUSE of our content strips infoboxes and other non-core templating. It's arguable that the birth name should not be added to the infobox at all, since it probably is not a key fact for the reader, except in the rare case that the birth name is also well known (as in the case of Mark Twain AKA Samuel Clemens). If you don't want the birth name in the lead section, then it belongs in an "Early life" or "Personal life" section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

To echo some of the points above, the player infoboxes are precisely that: player infoboxes, as opposed to to biographical infoboxes. Their main function in snooker articles is to compile statistical information in relation to the player's career. For that reason, I think it is better to retain the name they are professionally known by in the infobox. As Alan points out above, including the full name in the lead is sufficient. Betty Logan (talk) 05:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

During the NI Open semi-final and final Chris Wakelin was introduced with the nickname "Strictly" because of his dancing prowess. I'd like to add that to the nicknames template but I can't find a good enough source. Can anybody help?  Alan  (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

None of the articles about the Northern Ireland Open referred to him as that, but if this nickname catches on I'm sure there will be some in the future. Here are a few that talk about his dancing: [1][2][3]. I can add a short "personal life" section on the Chris Wakelin page about this. AmethystZhou (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you - yes I've seen all of those sites.  Alan  (talk) 06:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

These came across my watchlist: [4][5] – Moving players from Category:Snooker players from Cardiff to Category:Sportspeople from Cardiff and speedy-deletion tagging the former. I don't know if there were other articles in that category, nor whether similar cat. depopulations are happening, or if anyone cares, but it might be worth a look from someone who knows category stuff better. If there were only two members in that category, then deleting it is probably not a big deal. But programmatically getting rid of player-by-city categories probably would be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's another one [6], already reverted, but I don't know if other players were removed from the same category, etc. Update: There were at least 4 players in Category:Snooker players from Neath (because 4 have been restored so far), which is certainly enough for a category.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 09:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The user doing this has been warned on their talk page to stop and to revert their mess, but it would probably be wise for editors here to troll through that person's "contributions" and undo this stuff, before the CFD bot acts on all the bogus speedy-deletion taggings.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Fred Davis (snooker player) has a problem of numerous partial citations to Snooker Scene articles without providing article titles, author names, or any other information identifying the particular content, just citing the existence of the magazine. Someone with a bunch of Snooker Scene back issues could probably fix this. This diff ends up incidentally highlighting most or all of the problem citations [7].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I just created the page with the basic information. I'm also experimenting with the qualifying stage bracket template by moving the player seedings to superscripts. I made two examples in my sandbox. IMO the second one is clearer, without having the seeding numbers in the same format as the score, it's also consistent with the other tournament pages' style. Thoughts? AmethystZhou (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

My concern with the superscript idea is the font size. Generally we shouldn't be using small text unless there's a good reason, and when we do, it shouldn't be less than 85% of the standard size for the page, see MOS:SMALL etc. Having important information that's barely readable is not a good idea. I'd keep the old style. Nigej (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and it's not a sanctioned use of the format at MOS:SUPERSCRIPT, which makes it clear that it's an unusual presentation form used for specific purposes. Any time you are inventing a new style to mess with display just to treat something as "special" on this site you are almost certainly making a mistake. This is not someone's personal blog, it uses an extremely spare amount of stylization of content, and editors are very touchy about injecting unnecessary style changes of any kind, especially when it has accessibility implications. And in this case, the reader is almost certain to mistsake the markup as some kind of footnote, because this is hardly distinguishable from the established style for those.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I still think that the default style of the 2NTeam-NTeamBracket is confusing because the seedings and the scores are the same size and font, to the left and right of the players' names. We can use a simple parenthesis (not superscript) after the name then, like this:  Ronnie O'Sullivan (ENG) (1) (see example in my sandbox with this style)

I tend to agree, but this also suggests that this should really be raised at Template talk:2NTeam-NTeamBracket and resolved there [and its weird that it doesn't have a talk page yet, as if no one cares despite its broad use], so snooker doesn't have a reader-confusingly divergent style from other sports for no reason (and because if an innately confusing display issue is built into the template, this is a problem across a wide swath of articles that should be fixed, regardless of anyones habitual focus on a particular topic for how they want to spend their time here :-).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree too. See for instance 2023 Major League Baseball postseason#Playoff bracket where the difference between the seedings and score is not instantly obvious. So although the "seed to the left, score to the right" is very common in Wikipedia (see module:Team bracket), that's not necessarily a good reason to go that way (although we ourselves did it like that for a long long time, eg 2016 World Grand Prix#Main draw) . I suppose the point against the parenthesis style is that "... (ENG) (1)" is also perhaps confusing. Nigej (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I quite like the superscipt seeds. I think that "... (ENG) ⁽¹⁾" looks better than "... (ENG) (1)". I'm 77 and my sight is failing but I have no problem with superscript (can't read italics though). I think that the brackets with the seeds to the left of the names look untidy and confusing.  Alan  (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

What amounts to "my eyesight may be worsening but is still better than yours" doesn't make for a good accessibility-related argument, nor does it address the problem that these are difficult to distinguish from footnotes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say that or mean that, and I wasn't making an "accessibility-related argument". I just think the superscripted seeds look better, but I do see your point about the similarity to references and notes. However, I don't think there are many examples of references or notes within brackets.  Alan  (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, most of the tournament pages so far in the 2023-24 season use the superscript style. If we can reach a consensus on what style to use for the brackets, I can add a section to MOS:SNOOKER regarding the seeding, and update the recent tournament pages to get rid of the superscripts. AmethystZhou (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

What we might really want here (regardless of the formatting choice) is a template to use a tooltip to make it clear that the number is the seeding order.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Like this?  Ronnie O'Sullivan (ENG) (1) I think it looks good! AmethystZhou (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but handled automatically by a template used in building these charts instead of having to be manually coded as {{tooltip|(1)|player seeding}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I tried out this format on the 2023 Champion of Champions page (don't have the actual seeding number for most of them yet), looks OK in my opinion. Making a new template that automatically populates the seeding into the tooltip format would be great, but I don't know how to do that.. :( AmethystZhou (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be working quite well in the 2023 International Championship.  Alan  (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Fung Kwok Wai
• Gareth Coppack
• Stephen Rowlings

These are probably next on the questionably-notable-players AFD chopping block. I don't have an issue with bios like this being deleted, but if someone wants them kept, they're going to have to find in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC); revised 07:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• See also the "Notability unclear" entries at the cleanup listing, which updates every Tuesday. I think a number of the biography articles created in good faith at the time of their initial publication now fail on notability after the outcome of WP:NSPORTS2022. (Although I believe that WP:NSPORTS has actually had "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline" included for some time.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Coppack and Rowlings were probably created because they played on the main tour for at least one season. Of course, that doesn't guarantee that they pass WP:N. Rowlings has a longer German version: de:Stephen Rowlings but it's largely unreferenced and doesn't give any indication that he's notable. Similarly de:Gareth Coppack doesn't really get us over GNG either. Nigej (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Of the ones up for AfD right now, the only one I'm concerned about is Phaitoon Phonbun. While we don't have an actual encyclopedic need to catalogue every single player who has turned pro for a while in snooker (thus the other AfDs), national champions (even amateur ones) in any sport are generally notable, and that's an international regional champion (Asian Games). But sourcing is hard because the player is Thai and most of the non-brief material about them is probably going to be in Thai-language publications that are challenging to find for people who don't know the language and don't have ready access to things like Thai news. Google tends to under-index such material. I did post a note at WT:THAI, but I don't know how active that wikiproject is. But there may also be snooker-specific magazines and newsletters and whatnot that could be cited. Maybe also news from cities/countries in which the AG events were held (perhaps in a language neither English nor Thai and using some other orthography).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the same applies to Victor Sarkis, which is why his draft article keeps being rejected.  Alan  (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

For finding sources, the Wikipedia Library has some great resources for eligible editors, including Newspapers.com and the British Newspaper Archive. Another useful resource, for older things, is archive.org, which includes several snooker books. (Including Ian Morrison's Hamlyn Encyclopedia of Snooker and Who's Who in Snooker; and Clive Everton's Guinness Book of Snooker and Embassy Book of World Snooker.) Also, you can let me know if there's something specific you would like me to check from my own library. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Benny. Some information about the 1990 Shoot-Out would be helpful (format, dates and times, rules, etc.) I noticed that you've already added references to it - thanks again.  Alan  (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The infobox on the Stephen Maguire page says he currently has 505 centuries, but snooker.org says that "Maguire's century in frame 10 (of the match with Jordan Brown) was his 500th as a pro". CueTracker lists 499, although I'm not sure if it includes the latest one vs. Brown. Which is correct? Is there an official source from WST on number of centuries? AmethystZhou (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

According to the player page on snooker.org the latest one is the 500th "as a pro" while he made his 500th "career century" in the qualifying for the Northern Ireland Open, so the higher numbers probably include a few from amateur events in his early days. AmethystZhou (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Generally it seems that the numbers that WST use, match the numbers at https://snookerinfo.co.uk/ and so we tend to use those. Nigej (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Whichever is correct, and I suspect that CueTracker was not up-to-date when you looked, does he need to be added to this table?

 Alan  (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

yes, but needs a reliable source. Nigej (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Surely snooker.org will do.  Alan  (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Oops! snooker.org seems to have deleted that sentence.  Alan  (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

https://www.snooker.org/res/index.asp?event=1474 still mentions it in his match against Fergal O'Brien. See also https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/other-sport/snooker/jordan-brown-books-semi-final-31398799 Nigej (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

But we can't use that as a reference in the 2023 International Championship. I put it in since the sentence was in today's matches on snooker.org but it's gone now so I've taken it out. Those references to previous events can be used for the table in Century break though.  Alan  (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I've done that. Also used the Irish Mirror as a reference in the 2023 International Championship, and put the deleted sentence back in.  Alan  (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been looking through archive.org to try to work out the reasons for the difference between the two. Up to the end of the 2008-09 season the totals agree: both 147. However there are some differences in the season totals after that date: Chris Turner's Snooker Archive has 13 in 2009-10 and 35 in 2010-11 where cuetracker has 12 and 31. snookerinfo has 32 for 2019-20 when cuetracker has 31. It's difficult to tell exactly what the reasons are but it seems most likely to me that cuetracker is leaving out events that the Chris Turner/snookerinfo total includes: 2009 Beijing International Challenge, 2010 Beijing International Challenge and 2019 World Cup (snooker) - Maguire made 6 centuries in these, which is the difference in the totals. Which is "correct"? Who knows? Nigej (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems logical to me that, since we have recorded those six centuries in the articles for the three events, then the higher total should be the one to use.  Alan  (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

However Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so whether we have or haven't got articles for these events should make any difference. Nigej (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for going through all the research! Maybe snooker.org considers those to be exhibitions rather than real tournaments. AmethystZhou (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course, it highlights the fact that while there's a list of ranking tournaments (and minor-ranking ones too), there isn't anything for professional non-ranking events. We don't distinguish between the top-end events like the Masters/Champion of Champions and something like the "2008 Hamm Invitational Trophy" (https://www.snooker.org/trn/0809/other.shtml). Potentially a list of such events where the centuries were included in the official total would be useful to us, but there seems little prospect of any reliable source coming up with such a thing. Nigej (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, just a quick message to notify everyone that BennyOnTheLoose and myself recently co-nominated the late, great John Spencer as a featured article candidate. If interested, please pass a quick eye over the article and leave your review comments on the FAC page for us to address. This is, of course, open to everyone, whether or not connected with the snooker project. For further info on the FAC review process, please see WP:FAC. Many thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks verra nahce! I did one typographic fix. Overall is reads very well, seems comprehensive of the subject, properly sourced as far as I can tell. I wish more of our articles were like this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Thanks for your glowing review here, Mac! Would you be in a position to add a brief comment on the FAC page to aid the review process (and possibly add your support)? No expectation or obligation, of course. Thanks again, Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. I didn't realize these things could just expire away into an archive with no decision being made. I'll pay more attention to FAC notices from now on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry not been about - drop me a ping for FAC reviews. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Question: why do we always convert the rounds sections in the British Open to top & bottom half brackets once the semis are reached. This doesn't make much sense to me since the tournament is unique in having a totally randomised draw, with no seedings. Surely it would be more sensible to leave the rounds sections as they are, and not bother with brackets. For the 2022 version, the conversion was done by User:CycloneCAP on 1 October 2022. I think it was better before the conversion.  Alan  (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Isn't the Snooker Shoot Out similar? I suspect User:CycloneCAP changed all those too. On balance I think the old style is better for the shoot out and I suppose the same logic applies here. Nigej (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Different user - same effect. The last shoot-out was done by User:Mkrny on 1 February 2023. I don't understand why these were done like this.  Alan  (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of brackets for the random draw events; the structured layout gives the impression the draw is structured when it isn't. The only way to tell the draw is random is by searching through the prose. A casual reader who only views the draw section can't tell it's random after the bracket conversion. Andygray110 (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

This type of draw is sometimes referred to as FA Cup style. 2022–23 FA Cup doesn't use brackets, it's simply round by round, and probably we should do the same. Nigej (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree. But how do we stop people like User:CycloneCAP and User:Mkrny from doing this? I suppose we could just keep a close eye on it and undo any bracket-adding edits, but that might lead to an edit-war. Also, is it worthwhile going back and changing all the previous randomised draw tournaments?  Alan  (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:BRD is a well-established approach. They WP:BOLDly did it, it can be undone and if there is a dispute then a discussion should ensue (like this one). I've left notices on the talk pages of the two users you mention. Nigej (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

OK - and what about the previous randomised draw tournaments? I've had a quick look at the 2023 Snooker Shoot Out and it should be fairly easy to revert it, but I don't know how many more there are to do, or if they'd be quite so easy.  Alan  (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=2021-12-26&namespace=all&start=2021-12-20&tagfilter=&target=CycloneCAP&offset=&limit=500 shows that CycloneCAP did the Shoot Out changes (up to 2021) in December 2021. Non-trivial to revert (eg name changes since then) but not a massive job either, I'd say. Nigej (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

See also the second half of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2022/January#Shoot Out edits where I see I had "mixed feelings" about the issue then. Nigej (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a good compromise would be to just have a bracket for the last 16, as you suggested in the archived discussion. Anyway User:Mkrny seems happy for the edits to be reverted, as just posted below, so we just need a response from User:CycloneCAP, and maybe some other responses here in order to reach a consensus.  Alan  (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, I originally changed the format to this on these articles as I felt the previous format was unreadable due to the quantity of matches and flags listed sequentially with no real thread between them. I feel the current bracketed method is much cleaner to read and parse for most users compared to a list of fixtures and results.

As the example of the FA Cup has been used to describe how random draws often do not use a bracketed format, other sporting competitions with unseeded draws such as the UEFA Champions League or NFL Seasons postseasons do use brackets once the final knockout configuration is known. Also, the FA Cup fixtures expand to give more info which isn't relevant on a snooker article.

Ultimately, the only information lost with a bracketed approach is the time and order of matches, which isn't routinely given on other snooker tournaments on Wikipedia so I hardly feel this constitutes a great loss. I'm happy to go with consensus but a quick note in the text above about draws being randomly performed after each round would perhaps assuage @AlH42's concerns? CycloneCAP (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The quick note like this: 2023 British Open#Round 1.  Alan  (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@CycloneCAP appreciate this, but FA Cup-style draws aren’t supposed to have a thread between them. They’re just a collection of random matches, where the only thread is the round being played. As for timings, thats a bit of a far-fetched argument considering that Shoot-Out articles always specified the start times for sessions in the older format before they were chanfed [and every subsequent match played would be 10 minutes after one concluded, with a small break half way through]. I feel like we shouldn’t be trying to make the Shoot-Out and British Open pages consistent with other snooker tournaments, since the formats are completely different to all other events. — CitroenLover (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I only edited the draw so it would be consistent with previous events. You can change it back and I'm not gonna edit next draws. Mkrny (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the earlier comments: the British Open and Shoot Out should not be using draw templates for any reason. They use random draws and the templates imply they are structured when they’re not. Although that makes them inconsistent to all other snooker tournaments, the inconsistency is deliberate as these tournaments don’t follow the normal format anyway. — CitroenLover (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

So far the consensus (among those who have bothered to comment) seems to be that the British Open and the Shoot-out should be treated differently to all other tournaments. So I have removed the brackets from the 2023 Snooker Shoot Out tournament. I have also added a sentence about the tournament format. Please feel free to revert this edit if you don't like it, or make any changes you think will improve it.  Alan  (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Belated comment: Makes sense to me, since the two events have a weird format for which the usual bracketing isn't appropriate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. That adds to the consensus. I've now done the same in the 2022 British Open tournament. Again, please feel free to revert this edit if you don't like it, or make any changes you think will improve it.  Alan  (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I have now removed the brackets from all of the Shoot-Outs back to 2011, and added a paragraph to each regarding the rules (random draw, shot-clock, ball-in-hand, lag, and blue-ball-shootout etc.) I have also been able, in the process, to rescue and archive a number of citations that were lost when CycloneCAP changed the format.

I still have to do 1990, and changing the format is fairly straightforward, but I have been unable to find out anything about the rule-set for that event. Were the shot-clock times the same as 2011? Did they use a lag or a coin-toss? Did they have a blue-ball-shootout? Was the final a normal best-of-three match? Any information would be appreciated.

I have also put in all of the referees for the finals except for 2012 which I think might have been Colin Humphries (see this video), but I am not sure, and for 1990 I can find no information.

When I get some time, I'll make a start on the British Open tournaments of 2021 and earlier, which might be a bit more complex since some of them were random draws, while others were more structured.

 Alan  (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the brackets the 1990 Shoot-Out, but still need information regarding the rule-set and the referee. All the other Shoot-Outs are OK, except for the referee for 2012 (see video in previous post).

I've also now removed the brackets from the 2021 British Open, and I think that's it all done because all the previous tournaments seem to have been structured. Any further information on this would be appreciated.  Alan  (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

For the 2023 International Championship they are yet to play the quarter finals and have already amassed 43 centuries in the qualifying stage, and 96 in the main stage. That's 139 total - surely that's a record. When the tournament is over on Sunday, I think that would be worth a mention in the centuries article.  Alan  (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

See: cuetracker.net/statistics/centuries/most-in-tournament-overall/all-time which has the complete list. The 2018 International Championship had 154 and seems to be the record outside the World Championship/Championship League. You'll need a good source if you want to use this information at Century break, otherwise it's likely to be removed. Nigej (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Nigej. I don't suppose there's much chance of getting CueTracker off the blacklist, is there? Ron Florax is very useful for this kind of data.  Alan  (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The trouble is that there's such a huge amount of information there. Individual items of data there are as reliable as anything else, especially given that it's all published and open to scrutiny. However when they start creating composite "facts" based on countless numbers of individual pieces of data, then it's much more difficult to be confident. We're happy to accept old stuff from Chris Turner's Snooker Archive as "reliable" even when it's "rabbit out of a hat" type stuff. Not sure what the solution is. Nigej (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it might be time to have another formal discussion about CueTracker, maybe with a proposal to accept it for some types of information but not others. I suspect that a lot of Chris Turner's Archive was transcribed from Ian Morrison's Snooker: Records, Facts and Champions. There are some rankings on Turner's site and Cuetracker that don't appear in older sources and I would guess might be their OR. Even Clive Everton's books/magazines are not always correct - for example his account of events around the Leslie Driffield/Jack Karnehm billiards title match and the PBPA/WBPSA's split from the BA&CC doesn't tally with the timeline in publications of the time; and he reports the wrong final score for the 1972 World Championship. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree. Maybe somebody should contact Ron Florax to discuss the discrepancies. I have tried to message him on his website a couple of times, but have been unable to make his message system work.  Alan  (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Just been looking at the 2023 International Championship century count again. We have 155 total (112+43) which is correct. CueTracker has 153, and after a bit of digging I discovered that CueTracker has got the detailed scores for the match between Ding Junhui and Pang Junxu on 8 November completely wrong. Ding made two centuries (134 and 115 see WST score) which CueTracker has not recorded. Ron Florax doesn't usually make this kind of error, so I tried again to contact him but still can't make his message system work. I don't use twitter, but maybe somebody in here does and could ask him to look at this thread.  Alan  (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Well spotted. I'm assuming you've tried cuetracker.net/about to contact Ron. https://snookerinfo.co.uk/2023-24-centuries/ gives totals which can be a useful check. Nigej (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

You assume correctly. I just get an error message about a required field that doesn't exist. Thanks for the link.  Alan  (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)