Talk:2010 World Snooker Championship/Archive 1

Frame by frame scoring
Will editors please refrain from updating the scores until the end of each session. The purpose of these articles are not to provide live score updating, and if people want that they can use the World Snooker site or the BBC site to monitor matches in progress. These articles are supposed to record the results of the matches, and that means if you have a score which says 2-1 or 7-5 or whatever you are technically making the article incorrect because that is not the result of the match. There are many editors on the Snooker Project who believe the results shouldn't be entered until the match is completed, but because the world championship matches can span several days there is a compromise to update the results only after each session. Please respect the consensus even you don't agree with it. Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User Armbrust’s behaviour on this article

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Concerns raised under policy WP:Own brought here in accordance with WP:Ownership_of_articles.

User Armbrust is the most numerous contributor to this article. As can be seen from his User Page, he is an avid sports contributor, especially in the area of cue sports and his work in maintaining the score, brackets and tabular details are meticulous and a significant positive to the project. However, as can be seen from the edit history, it is becoming increasingly difficult for other editors to add material. I offer three examples:
 * Many editors, IPs and others have attempted to add frame by frame updates. Armbrust reverts these on this basis that scores should only be updated at the end of sessions. While I personally agree with that approach, there is no discussion or consensus anywhere that I can see.
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archive 3. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  17:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree with you and BL, but that is NOT a consensus and the least you could have done is paste it here and refer IPs and others to it for their benefit. You do not appear to consider others when you revert their efforts. Leaky  Caldron  18:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Would be the sentence "We really apreciate your contributions, but please dont add mid-session scores to the article." good enough? Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  18:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be good enough for anyone who looked at the archived discussion above - it is not a consensus. Why do you consider that it is? How many times are you willing to revert a determined editor who just doesn't go away when they see you reverting their factually correct score edits? Leaky  Caldron  19:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In the previous cases they didn't made it agains, but if they would do it, then other members of WP:SNOOKER would do it too. Like in this case. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  20:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Members of WP:Snooker have no more authority here because they are members of a WikiProject. There is nothing in that project that covers this issue. I asked you where the consenus actually is. Threatening to have meatpuppets start an edit war is an inadequate answer and may need to be taken to another board unless you retract it. Leaky  Caldron  20:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it should be mada consensus about updating scores in sport. But it shouldn't be discussed there. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  20:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So if there is no consensus stop reverting innocent editors who know no better until you get a consensus. It's as simple as that. I would support an end of session update, but I will not accept your insistence that only you know best. Leaky  Caldron  20:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was never part of a discussion regarding this issue, but it was certainly the convention when I started editing the snooker articles and seems to be applied to ever event, and the reasons always seemed logical to me so I have always stood by it. Ultimately editing is done via consensus - that is edits to an article must be agreed by the editing community to be retained - so in that sense if some editors have a problem with mid-session updating the onus is on those who are in favour it to obtain a consensus to update the article in that manner.  I'm personally against it, but like I said below this issue has wider implications than just this article so if some editors are in favour of live updating I suggest we have a full discussion on the Snooker Project about it. Betty Logan (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the point, if there was discussion and reasoning then it would be documented. They appear not to be, so whatever convention and reasoning you believe you've been following is non-existent. There is therefore no greater onus on the live updaters to gain a consensus then there is on Armbrust. He just wants things his way. He updates the scores literally within seconds of the end of each session but refuses other editors the right to update verifiable scores at the end of each frame. That is clearly an ownership trait. He needs to get a consensus to get this regularised and I would likely support it but I will revert any frame scores updated by IPs where I think he is abusing his primary editor status. Leaky Caldron  21:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that you need a consensus to add stuff to an article, and there is no consensus for live updates. Armbrust and any other editor is entitled to remove material where a consensus hasn't been obtained to add material to the article.  They need a consensus to put stuff in the article, I do, you do and Armbrust does as well.  If any one of us add material to the article anyone has the right to remove it, and then the next step is to come on here and try to obtain a consensus for our additions. Betty Logan (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It can be quite readily be established that there are more individual editors in favour of adding frame scores than the handful of us who prefer end of session. I've counted at least 8 this week. That is a much clearer consensus than documented in last year's discussion, which was 2/2. If I added a verifiable, sourced frame score, removing it would be against the majority of editors recorded as wishing to update frame by frame. The onus is therefore on Armbrust or you if you wish to seek a consensus for end of session only. Leaky  Caldron  21:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Second, an editor has suggested adding a note referencing the current tournament on the World Snooker Championship main page – see . This is frequently done, in long-running series of reality TV shows for example, as a useful pointer to those simply using Wiki, not those of us who are editors. There is no substantive discussion to disapprove this – just Armbrust’s decision to reject it.
 * The article now containst an apropriate link. (And i havn't removed it.) Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  17:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. The request was to have it at the top of the article - do not attempt to obfuscate the issue. Leaky  Caldron  17:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * . Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  18:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as you say. Please explain why you twice reverted the original editor's insertion of the in-line reference. If you are willing to accept that you were wrong that, at least, would be a start. Leaky  Caldron  18:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because no other article contains such a in-line reference. The one use this time is used in many different articles. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  18:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would call that pedantic. A link is a link and the in-line format is certainly used elsewhere. In any event, you could have suggested the current box link if you had wished, if you had known about it. If you were not aware of it then you should have left the in-line reference. Leaky  Caldron  18:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Finally, my own attempts to add useful context have repeatedly been reverted without discussion or plausible explanation. The latest edit summary simply said that the article is about Snooker not John Higgins, yet we know that verifiable summplementary details can be very useful. It is not only the reverts but the abrupt manner of most of them that raises ownership alarm bells. An offer to discuss this concern has simply been reverted on his talk page.
 * The lead should summarize the content of the article, and as it isn't about John Higgins, there is no need to add extensive information about him at the lead section. We could also say "three times UK Champion, three times Masters champion". Armbrust  Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  17:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors involved in the above issues have been invited to discuss these concerns. Anyone else is welcome to contribute. Leaky Caldron  17:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a long standing agreement to only update scores after each session. The discussion is probably archived somewhere on a previous tournament page, but that is the consensus as I've always understood it to be.  If we decided to update on a frame-by-frame basis then it affects all the snooker aticles so it would be better to take it to the Snooker Project and hold the discussion there, so all contributors to the snooker articles can contribute their opinion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker


 * As for the second point, that isn't relevant to this particular article, so I suggest taking to the relevant article so that the regualr editors of that article can discuss and resolve the issue.


 * In regards to the third issue you raise, presumably you mean this revert: . Personally I have no objection to the mention of John Higgins being a three times world champion, but it is worded poorly because the championship wasn't "defended" by Higgins because the wording implies he he won this year's championship. Betty Logan (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree about point 1 - as I said in my intro. The section here is about what appears to be an ownership issue. Maybe if Armbrust advised fly-by editors adding frame scores or entered into reasoned discussion on this talk page about other editors ideas to improve the article, the perception would go away. Leaky  Caldron  17:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notable happenings
I am not sure why this is included. "Ken Doherty made his return to the Crucible, after having failed to qualify in 2009, but lost against Mark Selby 4-10."

So what makes it notable? He is not the only player returning after missing the 2009 championship. If it because he's a former champion then that fact should included. It is all very well including these "notable happenings" but unless there is an indication why it is notable then it breaches notability and original research policy and guidelines. The article is not just for aficionados of the game who know who KD is; it is for any reader in the future. Leaky Caldron  12:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. Have removed it. Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  13:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheers. Leaky  Caldron  13:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jordantrew, 26 April 2010
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a edit rquest. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Under "25th Anniversary rematch of the 1985 final", following text:

Steve Davis and Dennis Taylor will play a one-frame exhibition match on April 29, marking the 25th anniversary of the 1985 World Snooker Championship final which saw Taylor defeat Davis 18 frames to 17 on the final black.[8]

to be changed to (changes in bold, additions in italic):

Steve Davis and Dennis Taylor are scheduled to play a one-frame exhibition match on April 29, marking the 25th anniversary of the 1985 World Snooker Championship final which saw Taylor defeat Davis 18-17 on the final black.[8] ''However, after defeating defending champion John Higgins, Davis suggested that he will not play the match (on the scheduled date) if he reaches the semi-final stage of the tournament. (citation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1tlvI6frAc&playnext_from=TL&videos=VUMeHxllKFw&feature=sub). As at April 26, it is unclear whether the tournament organisers intend to propose an alternative schedule for the match.''

Jordantrew (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit request rejected, because an editor's eyewitness account does not qualify as a source for an alleged fact under WP:V/WP:ATT. Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  21:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Pointless edit per WP:Crystal and other policies relating to non-encyclopedic content. Let's just wait to see what happens. Leaky  Caldron  21:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. At the moment it is still set to go ahead, so if Davis makes the semi and they cancel it then we can alter the statement as when and if. Betty Logan (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. As you can see, I'm new to this. I don't understand, however, why this is considered an eye-witness account? The statement was taken from a broadcast press-conference, which I take to mean it has been published in the media - so, why not valid? The statement of the organisers' intentions to reschedule, I'm with you, but Davis's intention not to play has been published in the media and is relevant to this notable event, no? Jordantrew (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's true, than there should be a non-video source. Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  21:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Further, it is not Crystal in that Steve Davis has stated that he won't play that match, no? Jordantrew (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's crystall, as it is unknown wheter Davis will reach the semi-finals. Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  21:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Yes it is unknown whether he will reach the semi, but it is not unknown what he will do if he does - he will not play the match - at least this is his reported intention. I think it is relevant, as a reader may ask himself, as I did, "what will happen to the exhib match should Davis get through to the semi". However, all of this is academic if a recorded press conference is not sufficient basis for the inclusion of this information. So, should I assume in future that material can only appear on wiki when it has been published in print? Jordantrew (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS - News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Leaky  Caldron  22:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Leaky! Jordantrew (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Video or audio is an acceptable source if published by a reliable source, for instance on the BBC website. The whole point of references is to provide verifiability, that is the reader can check the facts in the article.  So if the reference includes a link to a video backing up the claim on the BBC website then that would be ok.  Saying "I saw it on TV" isn't because there's no way to verify the claim. Betty Logan (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Just to clarify, though, I'm not in the latter category! The tournament's official youtube page shows the video of the press-conference, and the video is linked to by various other sites that report snooker news. Jordantrew (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It is acceptable only to record when a change is actually made. Davis saying this that and the other is not an official statement IMO. It is up to the organisers. WP:Crystal - Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Leaky Caldron  22:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too hung up on the acceptibility of the source, if the video is on an official channel hosted on Youtube (as opposed to just uploaded by a fan) then it would most like be a reliable primary source. But the thing to remember is that verifiability is not the criteria for inclusion, it is a requirement of inclusion. The criteria for inclusion is notability. Betty Logan (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a edit request. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request from 86.146.103.159, 29 April 2010
Please change treadmark to trademark on Notable happenings, Quarter finals.

86.146.103.159 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Final Frame score
Why is the frame score being updated during the session? Leaky Caldron  17:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Because the frame scores are needed, and the framescore of one particular frame doesn't change after the frame is endend. Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  17:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I asked why they are being updated in running. The frame scores can be updated at end of session, along with the match score. You appear to be holding an opposite position to that which you have held for the last 2 weeks and I would like to know why. Leaky  Caldron  17:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The frames scores aren't going to change once the frame has concluded. The frame score will remain the same whether you do it at the end of the frame, the end of the session, or a million years from now.  Betty Logan (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not wait until the end of the session to add all score data? That would be slightly more consistent with that well known policy WP:NOTNEWS #4, which is the ony excuse I can see for you insistantly preventing other editors adding frame by frame score updates this last 2 weeks. Leaky  Caldron  17:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Leaky - I have observed an ongoing debate on this matter, in which Armbrust consistently argued (and reverted edits from his detractors) that frame scores ought not to be updated until the end of sessions. Why the change of heart? I believe post-session updates to be more reliable - they can be sourced from post-session reports. Frame tallies that are updated throughout the session do not remain static, and therefore eventually the scores need to be sourced to an article or end-of-session summary anyway. In the end, WP:NOTNEWS. If people want to know the current frame score of the match, wikipedia is not the place to come. Jordantrew (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue with the session scores was about adding data that wasn't finalised. The frame score is finalised. Once added the scores aren't going to be altered at a later point so it doesn't matter when they are added.  If you want to draw an analogy, adding the session score mid-session would be like adding the frame score mid frame which Armbrust isn't doing, or at least I assume he isn't doing that. He waits until the session is over before adding the session score, and waits until the frame is over to add the frame score. I don't really see the inconsistency.  Once this tournament is over we're going to have to have a full discussion on the snooker project so we can get the score updating rules down in writing.  Betty Logan (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, he's updating the frame (match) score in running. If you don't believe me, take a look. His approach is highly idiosyncratic and inconsistent. The frame (points) score is but a particle of data - much like a goal scorer - and should be added collectively at the end of match (or session). Leaky  Caldron  18:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I thin you're mistaken. I add frame scores only after the frame has ended. Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  18:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTHING should be added until the end of the session per wp:notnews - "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information". Live frame scores and frame points are breaking news, and you treat it differently from other information by inserting it immediately and italicizing it. Please stop breaching policy on content. Leaky  Caldron  18:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Will not update frame score, but i will add frame points. Armbrust <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  19:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is not one piece of policy to support live score update at this time rv per WP:NOT #4.  Leaky  Caldron  19:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're against it, then you should bring this matter to WT:SNOOKER. Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  19:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm against it per policy as detailed above. WT:SNOOKER has not discussed it and I have no intention of taking it there. A small interest group has no sway over wider WP policy - see WP:CONLIMITED. You are in clear breach of policy and I would ask you to make no further similar changes. If you continue to do so I raise your disruptive editing at AN/I. Leaky  Caldron  20:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do what you must do. Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  20:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Set out which policy you are relying on for adding this information. Why do you object to following that set out above and just wait. Leaky  Caldron  20:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONSENSE. Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  20:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You reverted dozens of score updates by IPs and others who would eqally have claimed that their score updates were commonsense. Your idiosyncratic approach claiming that adding the frame points makes a difference to that position is nonsense. WP:COMMONSENSE is nothing more than an Ignore all Rules essay that in no way supersedes hard coded policy on making news ticker updates. Please stop because you are not editing in line with policy. Leaky  Caldron  20:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the length of the final and that some WP:RS have been known to provide an interval update, why not update score (frames and points) at the session intervals, unless anyone else objects, of course. That would be commonsense to me. Leaky Caldron  20:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that the frame scores are now apparently remaining static until the end of session, individual points tallies should be updated in the same manner. It is illogical and confusing to have, as currently, frame score 5-3 (8 frames) and meanwhile list more than 8 sets of points totals. Jordantrew (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have argued this very point and have suggested a compromise of updating both ONLY at the session interval. Armbrust's approach shows no sign of compromise though and his reliance on WP:COMMONSENSE is without justification. Leaky  Caldron  21:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will add the scores, but hide them and make them only visible after the end of the session. Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  23:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good idea. Leaky  Caldron  23:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable happenings - Higgins
Following another editor's insertion of a highly tabloid-style, unreferenced mention of the Higgins affair, I added the following, short, precisely referenced alternative: “Before the start of the final it was announced that provisional world No. 1 John Higgins had been suspended by the WBSPA following a News of the World story alleging that he had agreed to loose frames in future tournaments for money.[15][16][17][18]". Not surprisingly, Armbrust, the primary editor for this article immediately reverted it with the edit summary “rm info not relevant ot world championsip”(sic).

I dispute this. The story was published precisely to coincide with the start of the final, to boost sales and potentially cause embarrassement. It involves the world No. 1 and defending champion. It impugns the integrity of the sport and has been widely reported and discussed in all major sources, including the BBC which has covered the events and its direct impact on the final participants at length on each broadcast session so far. Dott is managed by the same agent as Higgins, so there is a further direct connection there. Lastly, the final and the Higgins story has been considered for a wp:itn tomorrow. Armbrust appears to be solely concerned with the statistical representation of the article. This is the third piece of text from me alone that he has repudiated. I believe that the suggested addition is highly notable and highly relevant in the context of the timing of the final and it should be mentioned in the Notable events section. Leaky Caldron  18:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have any problems with that paragraph being included, since the incident has taken up a large chunk of the BBC's coverage. Armbrust might not have BBC access so he might not be aware of how much coverage the incident has had during the WC programming. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. For all the reasons raised by Leaky, this section is completely relevant, exceedingly relevant, but of course should be kept to a brief summary, as was done. In my view it is absurd to suggest that this scandal has no relevance to the final and to the championship - and there is no need to have access to the BBC TV (I am abroad as well) to know the level of coverage and the relevance of this matter. What is Wiki policy in this matter: since there is no consensus in opposition to Leaky's addition, and there are currently 3 proponents and 1 detractor, there is no barrier to reinstating, right? Until there is an answer to this, I'm being bold and reinstating the change. Jordantrew (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't cloely related to the article. Just because it happened at the time of the final doesn't mean it is necessary in this article. If it would be like this, than we could also include information of the pregnancy of Robertsons girlfriend. Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  20:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is just a totally fatuous comment, unhelpful and shows a distinct lack of awareness of the extent of the coverage of the Higgins disclosure in the UK broadcast media. There are 4 editors who agree that this is totally relevant, 3 of whom have commented here. I am replacing it and you will be approaching 3RR violation should you remove it again. Leaky  Caldron  20:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaky pointed out the arguments. Virtually every article on this scandal refers to the "cloud" that the final is covered in on account of it. Dott's manager is at the centre of the scandal. The scandal's timing in relation to the final was relevant enough for the BBC studio team to dedicate considerable time to raising and discussing the matter during their Championship telecast - they didn't do this for Neil's girlfriend's pregancy. There is no question that this championship will be remembered for this incident. Jordantrew (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a clear relation with the finals due to timing, and extensive BBC coverage. I do agree that it merits mention; but it should be only briefly mentioned and should not get overdue attention. Arnoutf (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is probably about the third most notable thing about the world championship, so it should definitely be included - but as it is likely to be contentious keeping it as short as possible and mainly just linking to the article that discusses will probably be best to avoid the same arguments/revert wars going on in more places than needed. --86.173.140.91 (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest finish ever?
2006 World Snooker Championship

"The 2006 888.com World Snooker Championship was held at the Crucible Theatre, Sheffield, was scheduled for 15 April through 1 May 2006, but continued into the early hours of 2 May 2006. Ending at 12:52 a.m. BST, this final broke the record at the time for the latest (though not longest) finish in a World Snooker Championship final, at over half an hour later than the 1985 finish at 12:20 a.m."

I believe 2010 final has broken this record. It has finished at 12:53 a.m. BST. Need to update all related articles. Eternal Triangle (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you got a source for that? If you're just going off your watch you could be a minute or two out. Betty Logan (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The BBC reference] says they equaled the record. Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  01:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox: Why "Champions"?
In the infobox at the top right of the article there is a section called "Champions" with details of the winner, runner up and the score in the final. I'm wondering if it's possible to change the label "Champions". There is only one champion, as there is only one draw. I'm only new to wiki editing, but I gather the infobox is based on a generic sporting template that allows for tournaments with different draws (eg men's, women's, etc). Is it too tricky to bother changing? Jordantrew (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The template is unique to the snooker articles so it can easily be altered. I guess it could cause a problem for doubles tournaments and team events though.  Maybe it could be changed to "Finalists" because that would fit both singles and doubles events. Betty Logan (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice idea Betty. Can I leave the change to an expert? :) Jordantrew (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You should take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker since it affects all the snooker articles. Betty Logan (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, will do Jordantrew (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Tone
The paragraph about the final reads as if Robertson won by default, though meeting only one Top-16 player. So I added that he beat Carter "decisively" in the semis, to balance this a bit. 17-12 is a decisive win, unless we can't say "decisively". bigpad (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)