→Flagicons: reply |
The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) →Flagicons: add |
||
Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
:::::Sorry, no, that's bollocks. What I see is people blind-reverting and not discussing things, and other people pointing at MOS saying this is what is recommended for any article on Wikipedia. By all means have a personal disagreement with MOS, but recognise that to achieve FA, compliance with MOS isn't desirable, it's mandatory. Collaboration only works via communication, and what I'm seeing through continual blanket reverts by edit warring is nothing like collaboration. There has been no "blind dismissal" of anything here, other than by those edit warring to maintain their personal preference in spite of MOS wording. I'm glad you conclude with an agreement that the current situation is contrary to MOS and that you also agree with me that just flag icons alone are insufficient. And by the way, there's no "teaming up", you need to retract that unsavoury and despicable accusation. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC) |
:::::Sorry, no, that's bollocks. What I see is people blind-reverting and not discussing things, and other people pointing at MOS saying this is what is recommended for any article on Wikipedia. By all means have a personal disagreement with MOS, but recognise that to achieve FA, compliance with MOS isn't desirable, it's mandatory. Collaboration only works via communication, and what I'm seeing through continual blanket reverts by edit warring is nothing like collaboration. There has been no "blind dismissal" of anything here, other than by those edit warring to maintain their personal preference in spite of MOS wording. I'm glad you conclude with an agreement that the current situation is contrary to MOS and that you also agree with me that just flag icons alone are insufficient. And by the way, there's no "teaming up", you need to retract that unsavoury and despicable accusation. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::::Again that is blatantly untrue. That compliance is not mandatory at all. As have explained and demonstrated, I have NEVER seen this flag usage being used to block an article successfully passing a FAC. On the contrary, I have seen many of these sort of articles being promoted to FA with this flag issue. You're making a much larger fuss out of this than needed. The reality is that close to all of our readers understand these entire articles perfectly.[[User:Tvx1|T]][[User Talk:Tvx1|v]][[Special:Contributions/Tvx1|x]]1 21:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC) |
::::::Again that is blatantly untrue. That compliance is not mandatory at all. As have explained and demonstrated, I have NEVER seen this flag usage being used to block an article successfully passing a FAC. On the contrary, I have seen many of these sort of articles being promoted to FA with this flag issue. You're making a much larger fuss out of this than needed. The reality is that close to all of our readers understand these entire articles perfectly.[[User:Tvx1|T]][[User Talk:Tvx1|v]][[Special:Contributions/Tvx1|x]]1 21:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::::A claim which has no substance or verifiability whatsoever. I bet even you don't know the difference between the Belgian flag and the Luxembourg flag. Oh, and I'm not making a fuss, I'm simply looking to ensure our articles serve our readers. On the other hand, a number of users here are adamant that MOS should be completely disregarded by the snooker project (in general). Lamentable. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Is Mostafa Dorgham the African champion? == |
== Is Mostafa Dorgham the African champion? == |
Revision as of 21:16, 27 April 2019
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Too early
We have no real information about this tournament yet. I suggest we change it to a redirect for the next few months until some facts appear. Nigej (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. Done.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
History of the sport included on a page for a specific event
I’m a little curious if the early history of the sport is going to be mentioned on every World Championship page from this year forth. It seems redundant, but who am I to judge? Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- I 100% agree with you. Redundant in my view. Nigej (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- For background on the event. These sorts of things are paramount for any article ever wanting to be pushed for FA in the future (which is the plan). I've been adding these as part of a suggestion from The Rambling Man. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, the synopsis is hardly redundant to most readers who know little or nothing about the tournament. Of course I’d the snooker project consensus is to remove this and preclude any chance of FA, that would be a real shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm failing to see the logic. Hamlet (as a random example I clicked on) doesn't seem to have a potted summary of Shakespeare's life or of Elizabethan London or of Theatre. Surely someone coming here will surely be aware (if they know nothing of snooker) that they might like to go to Snooker or World Snooker Championship first. Nigej (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, not to worry, if you don’t see the logic, I can’t help you. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- It could be trimmed, if you were against the wording. Information on what the championship is, is quite important. You can't simply assume someone has knowledge of Snooker when hitting an article, or that they know about the world championships. For reference, I am attempting to pass 2018 World Snooker Championship (and later, this one) to FA status. This would mean that it would get (at some point) put on the main page of wikipedia, as "todays featured article", which means that readers would organically see the article, regardless of prior reading.
- Ok, not to worry, if you don’t see the logic, I can’t help you. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- For background on the event. These sorts of things are paramount for any article ever wanting to be pushed for FA in the future (which is the plan). I've been adding these as part of a suggestion from The Rambling Man. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- The same is also true, as the world championship appears annually on In The News, so it will appear on the main page of wikipedia without having to be searched. This is the purpose of the information. Perhaps the history of the championship could be shortened, regarding the nationalities of players and such. See The Boat Race 2018 for reference for a similar article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- I also found the information entirely redundant. It has no meaning especially as the vast majority of older articles don't include it and only about 3-4 pages had it mentioned in the last decade. Every time I see that section being included, I'll just remove it because it's not really necessary to include it, when it's the same text every time that just gets copypasted from the previous page.
- That's not how it works here. Plus you're absolutely wrong, it's not copy-pasted "from the previous page". Every year's background is different. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- If someone wants to find out more information about it, the link to World Snooker Championship (which is within the first 10 words of the page) can cover it for anyone that is interested (and said page is in much more detail that is useful than any summary put here). These tournament pages should focus on the actual event, not the history of the tournament itself imo.
- You're absolutely right, and having a very brief overview is not placing a "focus" on the history of the tournament, just providing context and useful information to a first-time reader who may not know how people qualify, how much the prize fund is etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- If the consensus is that the history should be included in sporting event pages like this one, then you need to go to every snooker tournament page and repeat it and with some tournaments, you're unlikely -- if at all -- to find any information about them that can be summarised effectively. --CitroenLover (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- This makes no sense. We don't have to go and change any other article, although doing so would obviously be a good thing to bring the lamentable quality up a notch or three. If the information is unavailable or can't be summarised (any examples of this??) then clearly that information won't be added. One step at a time. Try to drag one article from the gutter up to FA quality and iron out all these bumps. It's certainly safe to say your assertions are generally incorrect though. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- The information is clearly not redundant in situ in any sense whatsoever. Giving someone a bit of background (three paras??) on how the tournament works, who plays in it, who wins what etc, is actually really helpful to our readers for whom we are here. Just blanket removing such helpful information is quite disruptive and should be actively discouraged. Of course, it all the snooker contributors here are just seeking a list of statistics and nothing in any sense encyclopedic and complete, then feel free to remove the brief and informative section once again. But if the snooker project are dedicated to serving our readers, they would do well to consider that a few sentences on why and how a tournament works (thus making the seasonal articles comprehensive and standalone) is absolutely vital to progressing articles beyond start class, which I think is just about where 99% of snooker articles sit right now. ACCESS is another topic we need to cover, separately, but the jolly flags and poor use of bold must be addressed too. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- I also found the information entirely redundant. It has no meaning especially as the vast majority of older articles don't include it and only about 3-4 pages had it mentioned in the last decade. Every time I see that section being included, I'll just remove it because it's not really necessary to include it, when it's the same text every time that just gets copypasted from the previous page.
- The same is also true, as the world championship appears annually on In The News, so it will appear on the main page of wikipedia without having to be searched. This is the purpose of the information. Perhaps the history of the championship could be shortened, regarding the nationalities of players and such. See The Boat Race 2018 for reference for a similar article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Something not appearing on other articles is not a deletion criteria. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, of course background information is useful. That is the main reason for the links to World Snooker Championship and snooker, both included in the very first paragraph of the page. The redundancy occurs when you repeat background information on World Snooker Championship pages year after year. Best wishes, Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not at all, a summary of how this specific tournament works with last year's winner and some data on this year's prize fund and qualification etc is really helpful to readers who aren't snooker experts. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I guess, I will just have to repeat myself from the first paragraph of this section: »I’m a little curious if the early history of the sport is going to be mentioned on every World Championship page from this year forth. It seems redundant.« I will take it, that you will be able to see the difference between "the early history of the sport" and a "summary of how this specific tournament works with last year's winner and some data on this year's prize fund and qualification etc." But I will have to make sure, that we are on the same page. Cheers :-) Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- There's literally nothing wrong with providing readers with context, and it is in no way a "focus" on it, after all it's only a couple of sentences. Perhaps you're not familiar with the vast array of amazing articles I've written on niche sporting events, which are lauded at FAC for their completeness. I'd have a look at some of my accolades, then we can check if we're on the same page! Cheers!! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I guess, I will just have to repeat myself from the first paragraph of this section: »I’m a little curious if the early history of the sport is going to be mentioned on every World Championship page from this year forth. It seems redundant.« I will take it, that you will be able to see the difference between "the early history of the sport" and a "summary of how this specific tournament works with last year's winner and some data on this year's prize fund and qualification etc." But I will have to make sure, that we are on the same page. Cheers :-) Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not at all, a summary of how this specific tournament works with last year's winner and some data on this year's prize fund and qualification etc is really helpful to readers who aren't snooker experts. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, of course background information is useful. That is the main reason for the links to World Snooker Championship and snooker, both included in the very first paragraph of the page. The redundancy occurs when you repeat background information on World Snooker Championship pages year after year. Best wishes, Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Calling it a niche sporting event, is a little redundant, as these issues are site-wide (you will also see issues like this on articles on football, or golf). I think the thing to pay attention to, is that all articles on wikipedia need to be accessable for all readers. Whilst you might link an article, and call it a day (such as the main series page in this case), it doesn't really explain much. Imagine when this article is featured on the main page (which it's a safe bet that most articles could be on the main page, and this one most likely will be), readers will look at the article, with no information on Snooker. The best articles contain all the information you could need to understand the subject contained within the article.
In this case, we should have a little description of 1) what the competition is, 2) a little about the competition 3) how the players qualify for the competition and 4) what the winner receives. I think that three paragraphs is in no way too much information to explain the competition to a novice reader. Currently, this states what snooker is in the first paragraph (which doesn't go into too much detail, simply what it is), the second says what the world championships is, and the final paragraph comments on the prior years championship (which is something all good articles need to comment on), and the prize fund. I don't see this as redundant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is objecting to the concept. But as the title of this talk page section (History of the sport included on a page for a specific event) implies, I think the main objection is to the historical aspects of the section. As you say, we need to put in it into context: mention that its been going since 1927, the Crucible since 1977, defending champion, format, etc. but stuff about India, Joe Davis and Stephen Hendry are, in my view, too tangential. Nigej (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
All this for 3 paragraphs in a long article that'll get longer still? I'm an FAC veteran. Keep it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, and really the focus should be on far more pressing issues such as the multiple failures to comply with MOS. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Event finals table
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker/Archive_8#Event_finals_table never was resolved.
Since 2016 we have been using {{32TeamBracket-WSC2}}. This is the same as {{32TeamBracket-WSC}} that was used from 1982 to 2015 (the redirect {{World Snooker Championship Rounds}} is actually used) except that the "final" section has been expanded: The frame-by-frame section was originally 3 parameters (see eg 2015 World Snooker Championship#Main draw) but was expanded to 7 lines of 3 parameter (plus a currently unused parameter) to give a session-by-session split plus 3 extra rows for high break, centuries, 50+ breaks.
My preference is to go like 2019 Tour Championship - just 1 parameter for the frame scores (instead of 12), leaving out the end of session score.
Final (Best of 35 frames) Crucible Theatre, Sheffield, 6 & 7 May. Referee: Brendan Moore. | ||
John Higgins (5) Scotland |
16–18 | Mark Williams (7) Wales |
23–75, 15–65, 35–72, 60–70 (55), 120–4 (119), 0–133 (95), 98–0 (52), 82–21 (59) |
Session 1 3–5 |
23–75, 15–65, 35–72, 60–70 (55), 120–4 (119), 0–133 (95), 98–0 (52), 82–21 (59) |
46–81 (72), 75–31 (51), 127–8 (127), 12–76, 85–9 (56), 123–15 (117), 0–123 (118), 35–64 (64), 43–80 |
Session 2 4–5 (7–10) |
46–81 (72), 75–31 (51), 127–8 (127), 12–76, 85–9 (56), 123–15 (117), 0–123 (118), 35–64 (64), 43–80 |
5–98 (61), 19–73 (56), 0–126 (69, 56), 7–63 (52), 92–29 (67), 76–65 (72, 65), 80–0 (80), 8–84 |
Session 3 3–5 (10–15) |
5–98 (61), 19–73 (56), 0–126 (69, 56), 7–63 (52), 92–29 (67), 76–65 (72, 65), 80–0 (80), 8–84 |
131–1 (131), 68–58 (67, 58), 82–47 (82), 91–0, 67–47 (62), 0–74, 15–104 (100), 65–63 (65, 63), 0–71 (69) |
Session 4 6–3 (16–18) |
131–1 (131), 68–58 (67, 58), 82–47 (82), 91–0, 67–47 (62), 0–74, 15–104 (100), 65–63 (65, 63), 0–71 (69) |
131 | Highest break | 118 |
4 | Century breaks | 2 |
16 | 50+ breaks | 14 |
Mark Williams wins the 2018 Betfred World Snooker Championship |
to:
Final (Best of 35 frames) Crucible Theatre, Sheffield, 6 & 7 May. Referee: Brendan Moore. | ||
John Higgins (5) Scotland |
16–18 | Mark Williams (7) Wales |
Session 1: 23–75, 15–65, 35–72, 60–70 (55), 120–4 (119), 0–133 (95), 98–0 (52), 82–21 (59) Session 2: 46–81 (72), 75–31 (51), 127–8 (127), 12–76, 85–9 (56), 123–15 (117), 0–123 (118), 35–64 (64), 43–80 Session 3: 5–98 (61), 19–73 (56), 0–126 (69, 56), 7–63 (52), 92–29 (67), 76–65 (72, 65), 80–0 (80), 8–84 Session 4: 131–1 (131), 68–58 (67, 58), 82–47 (82), 91–0, 67–47 (62), 0–74, 15–104 (100), 65–63 (65, 63), 0–71 (69) | ||
131 | Highest break | 118 |
4 | Century breaks | 2 |
16 | 50+ breaks | 14 |
Mark Williams wins the 2018 Betfred World Snooker Championship |
Seems more like our usual style. Nigej (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I prefer the first table. Session scores and overall score progression is an important and interesting factor in the final and just because something is "usual" it doesn't mean it can't be improved. Other things we need to address is the use of bold, which isn't great from an WP:ACCESS perspective, and the decorative use of flags, which probably contravenes MOS:FLAG. A way to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, it's also missing row and col scopes which makes it a nightmare for people using screen readers, this also needs to be addressed. It certainly feels like a template should be created for this, rather than the hand-crafted code shown above, that shouldn't be too hard, and then we could work on making it consistent and accessible and in line with MOS across every event. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man - do you have a suggestion for the WP:ACCESS issue? I'm not sure there is a better way to indicate a won frame. It seems like we have quite a few things to denote in each frame - frame score, frame winner, and breaks. Also, not to forget the order of the frames. (You could, theoretically put down frames won for each player in different tables, but that would only be more confusing.)
- I totally agree it should be template based. I'd be happy to look into creating a suitable template. I'm not sure we'll ever get a consensus against the flags, but I do understand the argument. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Also, the first table looks horrid on mobile. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well we don't really need a consensus against the flags, that's what MOS is all about. They don't do anything beyond decorate because the nationality of the contestants is somewhat irrelevant in an individual sport where affiliation to a given country is completely irrelevant. I think we can make some easy wins on ACCESS with row and col scopes for screen readers, I don't think we actually need to use bold to indicate frame winners, if you understand how numbers work you can see which one is bigger, and if you don't, then using bold only is verboten per MOS:BOLD. I would remove it altogether. Radical, right? Not the "usual style" but doubtless an improvement for all our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Personally I'm happy to get rid of the flags and bolding. Many of the regular editors are over-keen on flags. The main issue though is the style of the table - to me the worst aspect (by a long way) is the duplication of the frame scores. As you said earlier the "Session scores and overall score progression" are in many way more interesting than the minutiae of the frame scores. I'm also keen on using a template (as I think was obvious from my initial post). Nigej (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be ok with a removal of flags, but it would need to be a thing across Snooker articles. We could have a bit of a combination of the two above, with the middle column being for session scores (as in table 1), but having each side just one version of the results (like if table 2 split the results to either side of a column. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Lee, re:flags, one step at a time. FAC demands high standards, which includes adherence to MOS etc, where we can't just litter articles with decorations. We can easily remove such floral items from a single article, in fact all snooker articles ought to comply with MOS anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be ok with a removal of flags, but it would need to be a thing across Snooker articles. We could have a bit of a combination of the two above, with the middle column being for session scores (as in table 1), but having each side just one version of the results (like if table 2 split the results to either side of a column. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Personally I'm happy to get rid of the flags and bolding. Many of the regular editors are over-keen on flags. The main issue though is the style of the table - to me the worst aspect (by a long way) is the duplication of the frame scores. As you said earlier the "Session scores and overall score progression" are in many way more interesting than the minutiae of the frame scores. I'm also keen on using a template (as I think was obvious from my initial post). Nigej (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well we don't really need a consensus against the flags, that's what MOS is all about. They don't do anything beyond decorate because the nationality of the contestants is somewhat irrelevant in an individual sport where affiliation to a given country is completely irrelevant. I think we can make some easy wins on ACCESS with row and col scopes for screen readers, I don't think we actually need to use bold to indicate frame winners, if you understand how numbers work you can see which one is bigger, and if you don't, then using bold only is verboten per MOS:BOLD. I would remove it altogether. Radical, right? Not the "usual style" but doubtless an improvement for all our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Also, the first table looks horrid on mobile. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I totally agree it should be template based. I'd be happy to look into creating a suitable template. I'm not sure we'll ever get a consensus against the flags, but I do understand the argument. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note, both User:Lee Vilenski/32TeamBracket-WSC2 and [1] have been prior attempts at unifying this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- My trouble is that I hate this box-type table much more than the current style. Nigej (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's fine, subjective opinions (e.g. "I hate...") are great, but not of any use whatsoever when it comes to improving the content of the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you've embarked on this campaign to denigrate all my comments. Perhaps you could explain. Nigej (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean. I'm simply stating a fact, saying "I hate" something is completely irrelevant. Perhaps choose your phrasing more specifically next time? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- However Lee says " the first table looks horrid on mobile." which you don't comment on and, indeed he gets a "Hi Lee" later. In the earlier discussion (link above) I did say "Still not keen on Lee's table. Looks very messy to me; I much prefer the "prose" style we use currently use elsewhere." And off-hand comments like "Ok, not to worry, if you don’t see the logic, I can’t help you." are clearly not constructive. Nigej (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know what you expect. "I hate it" is clearly not constructive, but if you can't see the logic behind something, it's not up to me to force you to see that logic, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. Let's stick to the topic in hand, shall we? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. Constructive helpful encouraging comments are the order of day. Nigej (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- You'll find I've made many of those, particularly around the suitable accessibility of the table. I would encourage everyone to familiarise themselves with MOS requirements if the snooker project ever want to get anything beyond a GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. Constructive helpful encouraging comments are the order of day. Nigej (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know what you expect. "I hate it" is clearly not constructive, but if you can't see the logic behind something, it's not up to me to force you to see that logic, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. Let's stick to the topic in hand, shall we? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- However Lee says " the first table looks horrid on mobile." which you don't comment on and, indeed he gets a "Hi Lee" later. In the earlier discussion (link above) I did say "Still not keen on Lee's table. Looks very messy to me; I much prefer the "prose" style we use currently use elsewhere." And off-hand comments like "Ok, not to worry, if you don’t see the logic, I can’t help you." are clearly not constructive. Nigej (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean. I'm simply stating a fact, saying "I hate" something is completely irrelevant. Perhaps choose your phrasing more specifically next time? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you've embarked on this campaign to denigrate all my comments. Perhaps you could explain. Nigej (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's fine, subjective opinions (e.g. "I hate...") are great, but not of any use whatsoever when it comes to improving the content of the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- My trouble is that I hate this box-type table much more than the current style. Nigej (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Back to the conversation over the event table; we should really be working on a table that is both aestetically good, and MOS approved. I think wires have been crossed above. I'm not sure I agree with the argument regarding WP:ACCESS. Whilst my knowledge is a little bit lax in that area, as far as I can tell, screenreaders don't read bold text differently than regular text (is that right?) So, removing the bolding from the article doesn't actually do anything, other than change how it looks on the page (potentially missing the argument entirely here). However, if we aren't changing this to something else to display who won the frame (by putting them in different columns or similar), then removing this does nothing for access, and doesn't help the article. As my A-level maths teacher always said: "Don't delete, unless you repeat." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Flagicons
We have a potential conflict here. The issue is a perennial one across sport articles. MOS:CUE#Nationalities and flags and WP:SNOOKER/NF gives the current MOS advice for cue sports and snooker. WP:NOICONS says "Icons should not be used in prose in the article body". Talk:2019 Monte Carlo Rally is a recent discussion. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_14#Formula 1 says "There is consensus to use the national flag icon of an athlete in an international competition as a graphic symbol for that athlete for competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in the particular sport." (which would seem to apply to snooker eg http://www.snooker.org/res/index.asp?template=45&event=743) but says "There is also consensus that the flags should not be used to represent the driver for other events where they do not represent a specific country or for general use." (which to me seems somewhat contradictory). I doubt that this is the latest discussion on the topic.
Personally I'd be happy with a compromise where were keep flagicons in the result brackets/table (per "flags are used to visually identify the sporting nationality of teams and individual players within drawsheets and result tables") but to remove them from sections like the bullet-point lists at the start of the qualification section and the century break section (on the basis that they are prose-like). Nigej (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's a bit of a difficult one really. MOS:CUE was mostly written by SMcCandlish quite a few years ago, whilst still guidelines, they can't overwrite the MOS for wikipedia at MOS:FLAG. I'm happy to have whatever meets the MOS (which seems to be clear removal of flags from Infobox and prose), with a discussion of if this also means places such as brackets and results. I believe there are issues regarding copyright and overusage therof from flags, and why this is an issue. I'm sure Stanton and The Rambling Man know a bit more than me on the subject. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding the issue with infoboxes: For biographies MOS:INFOBOXFLAG clearly says "However, the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport." and, as I noted above, that is the case for snooker. For other articles it says "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text." and "Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games." and certainly they are very widely used in sports competition articles and indeed in some Featured Articles, eg 2015 Vuelta a España. Nigej (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- The start of that sentence suggests that this is for biographical articles - "As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes even when there is a "country", "nationality", "sport nationality" or equivalent field:" I'm not sure this is ever really discussed in terms of sporting events. I've commented on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons notifying people of this conversation, as I'm not sure what the MOS actually should be in these articles. (Hoping to get some more input) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, for biographies it is generally "discouraged" but "the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport." which would cover everyone playing in the 2019 World Snooker Championship. Nigej (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- The current usage is decorative and unhelpful to the readers. Do you know the difference between the Belgium and Luxembourg flags? Can you pick out the Iran flag from the icon? Almost none of our readers will be able to do that. This is yet another stumbling block on any snooker article progressing to FA. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with these claims. These are the commonly presented fallacious arguments of flag deletionists. "They are only decorative". Not true, they do convey information: the nationalities the competitors compete under. This is a World Championship after all. Moreover, the vast majority of readers use the flag icons in such articles to quickly assess how their countrymen fared in such an event. "Do you know the difference between the Belgium and Luxembourg flags?, they are not useful because not every reader knows every flag". Wrong again. Firstly, I know the difference between those flags because the Belgian flag has vertical lines and the Luxembourg one has horizontal ones. But that doesn't even matter. Editors think things through when creating content. These icons are not merely static images. They are generated through accessible templates that allow even blind people to find out what they stand for. A person with perfectly able vision only has to put their mouse or finger on top of them when in doubt. That's where the MOS is actually obsolete. Technologies have evolved massively since its text was written. Secondly, they do not only become useful if everyone knows every flags. They are already useful when any reader simply uses them by tracking their own nationals through their own flags in such tables or even a handful nationalities they know and are interested in. "These flags will block this article from achieving FA status". Utterly wrong. I have seen many sports articles using flags in a comparative manner (e.g. 2012 Tour de France, 2009 Giro d'Italia, List of Wimbledon gentlemen's singles champions, 2014 Japanese Grand Prix, 2015 Formula One World Championship, Maserati MC12, etc]] receiving FA status. In fact I have never seen the presence of flags being used to block an article from getting promotion to FA. So, all in all these claims are simply wrong, leaving no actual justification for removing the flags.Tvx1 10:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Think again. This invalid use of flag icons is contrary to MOS so it is far from "utterly wrong" to state it will preclude promotion. Just because the MOS is abused in other FAs, it doesn't make it right. As noted, the country name should accompany these flags as a minimum. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think 2009 Giro d'Italia is actually a good example of how the MOS should work on an FA. It has the flags, and the names. Fits for WP:ACCESS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Think again. This invalid use of flag icons is contrary to MOS so it is far from "utterly wrong" to state it will preclude promotion. Just because the MOS is abused in other FAs, it doesn't make it right. As noted, the country name should accompany these flags as a minimum. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with these claims. These are the commonly presented fallacious arguments of flag deletionists. "They are only decorative". Not true, they do convey information: the nationalities the competitors compete under. This is a World Championship after all. Moreover, the vast majority of readers use the flag icons in such articles to quickly assess how their countrymen fared in such an event. "Do you know the difference between the Belgium and Luxembourg flags?, they are not useful because not every reader knows every flag". Wrong again. Firstly, I know the difference between those flags because the Belgian flag has vertical lines and the Luxembourg one has horizontal ones. But that doesn't even matter. Editors think things through when creating content. These icons are not merely static images. They are generated through accessible templates that allow even blind people to find out what they stand for. A person with perfectly able vision only has to put their mouse or finger on top of them when in doubt. That's where the MOS is actually obsolete. Technologies have evolved massively since its text was written. Secondly, they do not only become useful if everyone knows every flags. They are already useful when any reader simply uses them by tracking their own nationals through their own flags in such tables or even a handful nationalities they know and are interested in. "These flags will block this article from achieving FA status". Utterly wrong. I have seen many sports articles using flags in a comparative manner (e.g. 2012 Tour de France, 2009 Giro d'Italia, List of Wimbledon gentlemen's singles champions, 2014 Japanese Grand Prix, 2015 Formula One World Championship, Maserati MC12, etc]] receiving FA status. In fact I have never seen the presence of flags being used to block an article from getting promotion to FA. So, all in all these claims are simply wrong, leaving no actual justification for removing the flags.Tvx1 10:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- The current usage is decorative and unhelpful to the readers. Do you know the difference between the Belgium and Luxembourg flags? Can you pick out the Iran flag from the icon? Almost none of our readers will be able to do that. This is yet another stumbling block on any snooker article progressing to FA. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, for biographies it is generally "discouraged" but "the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport." which would cover everyone playing in the 2019 World Snooker Championship. Nigej (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- The start of that sentence suggests that this is for biographical articles - "As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes even when there is a "country", "nationality", "sport nationality" or equivalent field:" I'm not sure this is ever really discussed in terms of sporting events. I've commented on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons notifying people of this conversation, as I'm not sure what the MOS actually should be in these articles. (Hoping to get some more input) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding the issue with infoboxes: For biographies MOS:INFOBOXFLAG clearly says "However, the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport." and, as I noted above, that is the case for snooker. For other articles it says "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text." and "Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games." and certainly they are very widely used in sports competition articles and indeed in some Featured Articles, eg 2015 Vuelta a España. Nigej (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'd also like to ping Jamiecameron00 who's been reverting the changes stating "All snooker pages have and always will have nationality flags" to the talk regarding the MOS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- If there's anything in MOS:CUE or MOS:SNOOKER that are obsolete they should just be updated. I don't think they've been substantively revised in years. I would think MOS:INFOBOXFLAG addresses most of this, and it is a site-wide, non-topically-specific rule, thus a higher WP:CONLEVEL compared to things like MOS:CUE. In the two segements quoted at the top of the OP, I detect no conflict/contradiction. Use the flags for events in which flags are used regularly iin the real world to symbolize national representation at the event; don't use them more broadly, for events in which no one is representing a nation. However, there is no point in a flag icon in a bio article's infobox. The fact that Ronnie O'Sullivan is English is conveyed by specifying his nationality as English, not with a flag. Flag icons are useful in tables and lists of sports stats, not in bio infoboxes. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- But then again, they're not useful without country names because we should not assume that our readers can recognise nationality from tiny graphics. And that, that, is a huge problem here. We assume that people know what the Thailand flag looks like, what the Iran flag looks like etc. It's a false assumption. If the article wishes to impart this info to our readers, just using flag icons is wholly inadequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Aye. MOS:FLAGS is actually quite clear on this already: use flag icons as an additional thing to the country name (or in tight tables, standardized country code), when it's genuinely useful and conventional and expected to do so, but a) don't inject them otherwise, and b) don't use them in place of the country name. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Quite so. Current usage on this (and most of the other dreadful snooker articles I've stumbled across) contravenes MOS and thus invalidates any hope of them reaching anything more than GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- So, as per the above, what would be the solution? Use the {{flagathlete}} style tags? Or just remove entirely? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think the flags add value here because they helpfully show the countries that dominate the sport and, if you were comparing this year with say 1999, you'd see the emergence of China as a 'snooker power', but we should be compliant with MOS and include the country name too. It's a very sensible thing to do, for the reasons stated by TRM. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Quite so. Current usage on this (and most of the other dreadful snooker articles I've stumbled across) contravenes MOS and thus invalidates any hope of them reaching anything more than GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Aye. MOS:FLAGS is actually quite clear on this already: use flag icons as an additional thing to the country name (or in tight tables, standardized country code), when it's genuinely useful and conventional and expected to do so, but a) don't inject them otherwise, and b) don't use them in place of the country name. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- But then again, they're not useful without country names because we should not assume that our readers can recognise nationality from tiny graphics. And that, that, is a huge problem here. We assume that people know what the Thailand flag looks like, what the Iran flag looks like etc. It's a false assumption. If the article wishes to impart this info to our readers, just using flag icons is wholly inadequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Get rid of the flags. They add nothing. This is an individual sport, not the Ryder Cup.
- Nope it's a World Championship. Coverage does give importance to nationalities. So they do matter.Tvx1 10:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't feel like we are getting anywhere towards a consensus here. Would it be an ideal to initiate an RfC on this? I would also like to know how MOS:SPORTFLAGS comes into this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- The consensus, I'm afraid, already exists at MOS, which means you either remove the decorative icons, or add the country names next to each one. Either way, the current situation fails MOS and is untenable when considering FAC, despite some erroneous claims above. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- How about this change? Would this be enough to meet MOS? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- The MOS says that "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, ...", so we don't need it associated with every use of a flag. Nigej (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sadly it looks like there are too many edit warriors here Lee for your earnest attempts to comply with MOS to stick. The snooker project seem absolutely serious about never getting anything to featured status, which is a real shame. I'd move onto another, less edited page, and go from there, as once you have a precedent article then all these personal opinions will be meaningless. Good luck, let me know, I'm keen to help, despite the barrage of unhelpfulness coming in. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Just reverting an unagreed change does not count as edit warring. There are other ways of coming to a consensus. Simply dismissing other well-meaning editing that you don't like as "unhelpfulness" is simply insulting. You seem to have a plan to make the change to a snooker article that few are going to notice and then bring it here as a precedent to steamroller all those unhelpful editors. Not a strategy I approve of. Nigej (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you miss the point completely. The consensus exists per MOS yet edit warriors are adamant to keep snooker articles from making it to FA. I'd suggest Lee removes himself from attempting to do the right thing with this article and work elsewhere, this is beyond frustrating, I'm sure, for someone who wants get articles up the quality scale. And no, it's nothing to do "well-meaning" editors I'm afraid, it's a group who refuse to accept MOS advice and edit war to keep a poor quality version. Not a strategy I approve of. So, Lee, let's find a different article to focus on and leave this to those who wish to protect the poor formatting and anti-MOS approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- You really should drop this rather sarcastic accusations. They are just not true. No one deliberately wants to prevent this article from reaching FA status before. As I explained before, there is no evidence that present usage of flags is an objection for reaching this status. Many articles have successful gone through their FAC with comparable flag usage. Your complaints are just unfounded. I've never ever seen this been raised during an FAC.Tvx1 21:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Just because you've never seen it, it doesn't mean a thing. This isn't sarcasm, it's FACT. There appear to be a few regulars from the snooker project here who are able to read the MOS yet prefer to ignore it. The complaints are not unfounded. The problems are real. The sooner it's dealt with, and the sooner people stop applying their personal preferences over the site-wide guidance, the better. Otherwise, and once again, this isn't sarcasm, this is fact, there's not going to be a snooker FA. Meanwhile, we have half a dozen (or more) rowing FAs. Who knew? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- You really should drop this rather sarcastic accusations. They are just not true. No one deliberately wants to prevent this article from reaching FA status before. As I explained before, there is no evidence that present usage of flags is an objection for reaching this status. Many articles have successful gone through their FAC with comparable flag usage. Your complaints are just unfounded. I've never ever seen this been raised during an FAC.Tvx1 21:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you miss the point completely. The consensus exists per MOS yet edit warriors are adamant to keep snooker articles from making it to FA. I'd suggest Lee removes himself from attempting to do the right thing with this article and work elsewhere, this is beyond frustrating, I'm sure, for someone who wants get articles up the quality scale. And no, it's nothing to do "well-meaning" editors I'm afraid, it's a group who refuse to accept MOS advice and edit war to keep a poor quality version. Not a strategy I approve of. So, Lee, let's find a different article to focus on and leave this to those who wish to protect the poor formatting and anti-MOS approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Just reverting an unagreed change does not count as edit warring. There are other ways of coming to a consensus. Simply dismissing other well-meaning editing that you don't like as "unhelpfulness" is simply insulting. You seem to have a plan to make the change to a snooker article that few are going to notice and then bring it here as a precedent to steamroller all those unhelpful editors. Not a strategy I approve of. Nigej (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sadly it looks like there are too many edit warriors here Lee for your earnest attempts to comply with MOS to stick. The snooker project seem absolutely serious about never getting anything to featured status, which is a real shame. I'd move onto another, less edited page, and go from there, as once you have a precedent article then all these personal opinions will be meaningless. Good luck, let me know, I'm keen to help, despite the barrage of unhelpfulness coming in. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- The MOS says that "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, ...", so we don't need it associated with every use of a flag. Nigej (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- How about this change? Would this be enough to meet MOS? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's wrong to call it edit warring. It is, however, disruptive editing. So far, we've had suggested changes to comply with the site wide manual of style reverted. Ok, so we've hit parts one and two of WP:BRD, but the editors who do, aren't discussing. It's pointless to disagree with the MOS, unless someone plans on creating a WP:RFC on getting MOS:FLAG changed (Which, I'd be totally fine with, if that's the consensus.) However, this doesn't just effect WP:SNOOKER. This article will be featured on the main page (It's on WP:ITN/R after all.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm afraid individuals who just show up to blind revert without discussion are edit warring to keep a "preferred" version in place. Snooker articles aren't exempt from MOS, and blind reverting to contravene MOS is both edit warring which, by its nature, is disruptive. "Not a strategy I approve of", etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- And on the other side, I see two people on teaming up to try and force through their preferred version while blindly dismissing any opposition. That's just as disruptive. As is the patronizing tone taken to those editors. Just a quick reminder that MOS is a guideline, a set of advice, with a notice on top instructing to use common sense. It's not a policy let alone a law. Instead of your snide remarks about adamantly wanting to block reaching FA, it would be better to seek collaboration. I'm sure a solution can be found. I guess that, for instance, (based on how articles on olympic events are presented) the country code could be added between brackets behind the players' names in the first round of our bracket. But then again, I'll remember that these flag icons are generated through accessible templates allowing really everyone to find out what they mean.Tvx1 21:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, it is the patronising style that is so annoying. Nigej (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, it's the deliberate ignorance of MOS which is so annoying. But have it your way, we'll focus elsewhere while these articles languish in mediocrity. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, no, that's bollocks. What I see is people blind-reverting and not discussing things, and other people pointing at MOS saying this is what is recommended for any article on Wikipedia. By all means have a personal disagreement with MOS, but recognise that to achieve FA, compliance with MOS isn't desirable, it's mandatory. Collaboration only works via communication, and what I'm seeing through continual blanket reverts by edit warring is nothing like collaboration. There has been no "blind dismissal" of anything here, other than by those edit warring to maintain their personal preference in spite of MOS wording. I'm glad you conclude with an agreement that the current situation is contrary to MOS and that you also agree with me that just flag icons alone are insufficient. And by the way, there's no "teaming up", you need to retract that unsavoury and despicable accusation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Again that is blatantly untrue. That compliance is not mandatory at all. As have explained and demonstrated, I have NEVER seen this flag usage being used to block an article successfully passing a FAC. On the contrary, I have seen many of these sort of articles being promoted to FA with this flag issue. You're making a much larger fuss out of this than needed. The reality is that close to all of our readers understand these entire articles perfectly.Tvx1 21:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- A claim which has no substance or verifiability whatsoever. I bet even you don't know the difference between the Belgian flag and the Luxembourg flag. Oh, and I'm not making a fuss, I'm simply looking to ensure our articles serve our readers. On the other hand, a number of users here are adamant that MOS should be completely disregarded by the snooker project (in general). Lamentable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Again that is blatantly untrue. That compliance is not mandatory at all. As have explained and demonstrated, I have NEVER seen this flag usage being used to block an article successfully passing a FAC. On the contrary, I have seen many of these sort of articles being promoted to FA with this flag issue. You're making a much larger fuss out of this than needed. The reality is that close to all of our readers understand these entire articles perfectly.Tvx1 21:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, it is the patronising style that is so annoying. Nigej (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- And on the other side, I see two people on teaming up to try and force through their preferred version while blindly dismissing any opposition. That's just as disruptive. As is the patronizing tone taken to those editors. Just a quick reminder that MOS is a guideline, a set of advice, with a notice on top instructing to use common sense. It's not a policy let alone a law. Instead of your snide remarks about adamantly wanting to block reaching FA, it would be better to seek collaboration. I'm sure a solution can be found. I guess that, for instance, (based on how articles on olympic events are presented) the country code could be added between brackets behind the players' names in the first round of our bracket. But then again, I'll remember that these flag icons are generated through accessible templates allowing really everyone to find out what they mean.Tvx1 21:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm afraid individuals who just show up to blind revert without discussion are edit warring to keep a "preferred" version in place. Snooker articles aren't exempt from MOS, and blind reverting to contravene MOS is both edit warring which, by its nature, is disruptive. "Not a strategy I approve of", etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Is Mostafa Dorgham the African champion?
I can't find any source--42.3.195.100 (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- He isn't I think. ABSF African Snooker Championships has him as the losing finalist. By winning, Mohamed Ibrahim (snooker player) gained a place on the tour but withdrew. Presumably Dorgham is playing as the African representative. This should be made clear (assuming it is correct). http://www.worldsnooker.com/criteria-set-for-crucible-qualifiers/ says that "Should any of the above-named players decline their invitation then consideration will be given to alternative qualifying routes, to include continental championships and the 2018 Q School Order of Merit." although I can't find anything about Dorgham specificially. Nigej (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Seems very likely he didn't win the tournament, but there isn't a great deal of online sourcing for the championships Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Should James Cahill's bracket entry note his amateur status?
Other major sports around the world, notably golf and tennis, indicate amateur status within a bracket, usually signified with a "(a)" following their name (asterisked to "amateur" in the legend of the bracket). Should James Cahill's name indicate as such for the final field? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelopolis (talk • contribs) 14:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Amateurs are quite common in snooker, and in golf, there are special rules for someone being an amateur. Whereas, in Snooker it simply means they aren't on the tour. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Nevertheless it may be of use and/or interest to our readers to see how far through the various rounds any amateurs may have made it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Broadcasting rights section?
Should there be a separate "Broadcasting rights" or "Media coverage" section near the foot of the article, just as there is on articles for other big sporting events? Might be better than having a sentence (which is getting longer by the day!) about it in the opening section. Also, I think the Facebook coverage is specific to South/Central America and South Asia, rather than being "worldwide". Edin75 (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, if there's enough to discuss to cover a section, then this would be very useful for our readers. I've often found it hard to expand to a whole section for niche sports like The Boat Race, but it's definitely worth a try. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- 100% I usually make something like this such as 2018 World Snooker Championship#Broadcast. I'll knock something up when I'm next at a PC. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Live scores
I think Anaxagoras13 has a point in this diff which was swiftly reverted by another editor. WP:LIVESCORES does in fact state that "The current consensus is to not add visible match or frame scores to an article until the match is completed. Wikipedia should only record the results of the match..." If that is the current consensus in the Snooker MOS then why on earth are we not following it? I appreciate that we are currently in full flow with the 2019 championship so it would be absurd to change the approach at this point for this particular tournament, but I fail to see why the consensus is repeatedly being ignored when there was never any overwhelming argument for changing the consensus. All I can see is that not enough people got involved in the discussion and the consensus was therefore not changed. So whose decision was it to just ignore the MOS? I can see a couple of editors intent on providing live scores – surely one of these days they might like to sit back and relax and actually just enjoy watching a match!? Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archive 8#Frame-by-frame scores has an earlier discussion. Nigej (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- As per both of the above. It has never been accepted to update live scores on Wikipedia. However, any times I've attempted to stop the behavior in the past has been for naught. It's such a ridiculous uphill battle with editors cracking up thousands of edits simply for flouncing the rules.
- However, I think most people (such as myself) would rather just concentrate on working on the articles, rather than try and cut out this behaivour. It's easier to stop in something like soccer, or rugby where matches aren't updated as commonly. I've also seen a lot of these editors like the status quo; but would never partake in the conversations about this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I've sometimes wondered if we've had WPBSA people doing live scores. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've always wondered myself. Who's updating scores on the Indian Open qualifying. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)