Talk:2018 World Snooker Championship

Edit warring
Can all users who have been/are currently involved in edit warring please discuss their differences HERE before continuing to add/remove content? Andygray110 (talk)


 * Despite the hilarity, can we lock this page or something? I have a feeling they won't stop. (My two cents on the matter, I think we only really care about the position of the top players which snooker decides as the top 16, i.e. the seeds. But I don't care either way, trivial issue.) Vlord1994 (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with you, only seeded players should be shown in the seeding section. There is no reason to show a changes in rankings for 49th or 64th players. No need to show 19th and 20th rankings when 17th and 18th will be omitted. 46.211.109.142 (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The "problem" is, that this a new section. It is only found in the pages regarding the (2018) World Grand Prix and the (2018) Players Championship, where the whole field is shown. Though, all of the players in those tournaments are of course seeded. But when you are participating in the WC – or any other snooker tournament for that matter – when the draw has been made, you are participating on the same conditions wether you are seeded or not. And there is no point showing this table for only half of the main field. 14:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The different cases, When all 32 players were seeded with their numbers (and all qualified by rating) then all 32 players were shown in the seeding list. But here, only 16 were seeded. Compare to 2018 French Open – Men's Singles. 46.211.109.142 (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The real problem regarding the user, 46.211.109.142 however, is that he/she has been publishing my twitter credentials in a wikipedia-editing-note, and that he/she should be banned for this, of course. mrloop (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to admins, 185.136.116.183 is ip of Kirk Larsen from Denmark. Block him please. 46.211.109.142 (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stay on topic and discuss the 2018 World Snooker Championship. How tennis articles are laid out has no bearing on snooker, they are two completely different sports. Where someone is from is irrelevant also. If someone is logging out and editing as an IP user this will be easily spotted by an admin/checkuser. Page protection has also been requested. Andygray110 (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Could you please bring some argumentation, why you think I should be blocked? I'm not the one publishing information about you. And I'm not the one, who doesn't even care to log in to an account. Btw; I don't know why my name is showing as mrloop here. Maybe that was my original user name. But I am Thomas Kirk Larsen as well. mrloop (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The "Main Field" section does not add anything to the page. It seems like statistics for the sake of it, and it duplicates the information that can be seen in the main draw brackets below. If you want to add this section in, then I suggest you go through all of the previous years results and add it into those also so it is consistent and also be prepared to update it on every future tournament page going forwards as well. "Event status" - whats the point, we can see it from the brackets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.155.104 (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The "Seeding" section doesn't bring anything, that the Main Field section isn't bringing as well. It only brings redundancy, and there is no reason showing only half of the main field. There is two viable options: Include the whole main field or remove the whole table. That's my view and my two cents. mrloop (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree that the table doesn’t add anything and is redundant to the later Main Draw section. It should be deleted entirely. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree also as per WP:NOTSTATS. Andygray110 (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Include the seeded players only to show the ranking changes and their status in the tournament (like in all tennis articles). Try to apply the WP:NOTSTATS to ranking articles like Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 first. Note, the seeding sections are used in all football / tennis / other sports articles. 46.211.121.120 (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s appropriate in an article specifically on world rankings but not here. Other sports articles are not relevant to this discussion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not? 16 seeded players in snooker and 16/32 seeded players in tennis is an absolutely related tournament format. One-two weeks tournaments and knockout format in both cases are relevant cases be sure. 46.211.157.102 (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Mr./MS./Mrs. 46.211.121.120; You are welcome to depict a list of the seeded players. Though it is redundant, as seedings are explained in the "Tournament summary" section and are shown in the brackets of the "Main draw" section. If you want to show how players progress through the tournament, though, you do it for the whole main field. Not half of it. mrloop (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC) I can't spend anymore time on this retard. Others will have to do it. And now he is bringing my twitter-credentials and whereabouts into this again. Earlier on he was "threatening" me with showing up here. I don't know much about the inner workings of Wikipedia, but I find it mind boggling, that such behavior is being allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk • contribs)
 * Dear mrloop / poolrm from Odense. Not redundant section? Why? It's a very useful section (to show the seeding players, ranking changes and status of player). Try to see 2018 FIFA World Cup seeding or 2018 Australian Open or 2018 Australian Open – Men's Singles first. 46.211.157.102 (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, this is a discussion on a snooker article. Not football or tennis. Andygray110 (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, snooker and tennis have similar tournament format with 16 seeded players and knockout format. 46.211.157.102 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Admins, please block Kirk Larsen for such words as "retard". 46.211.157.102 (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Admins, please block 46.211.157.102 for bringing my twitter-credentials and whereabouts into this. And of course for vandalizing the 2018 World Snooker Championship and 2019 World Snooker Championship pages without being able to argue for his edits. mrloop (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Furthermore he has been "threatening" me to show up, where I live. Am I out of line, responding by calling him a retard? I think not. mrloop (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

As there is consistent edit warring, a discussion has been opened at the admin edit warring noticeboard. Andygray110 (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I have full-protected the article for 24 hours to stop everyone here reverting each other. Everyone go and read staying cool when the editing gets hot, calm down, take a deep breath, and resume discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Mr./Ms./Mrs. 46.211.121.120; thank you for the following comment attached to your latest edit of the page, before it was quarantined: »You personal opinion is not a consensus«. You comment really brought a smile to my face. One single person on this talk page agreed with something you said, and ten seconds later, you stated it as a consensus. Now a couple of people agree, that the section in question should be removed. But according to you, that's just my personal opinion – not a consensus. Really; from the bottom of my heart – thank you for making me laugh. mrloop (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear mrloop. I don't understand what do you have against the seeding section with a list of seeded players similar to 2018 World Grand Prix and 2018 Players Championship (snooker) and any tennis tournament. Two hours before, you had nothing against existing of this section (trying to expand this section even, incorrectly). Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. 46.211.118.81 (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What value does the section bring? Why does the reader need to know every player’s “Event Status” when that can already be seen in the draw section? Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct question. Such sections help readers better understand the tournament situation for top players (out of play, or advanced to next stage) and show the ranking changes (for example, who will be the first-second-third in rankings after the tournament). Not so easy to find the favourite player quickly in high brackets or long ranking tables. It's an useful practice in all sports articles. If you don't like tennis, see the Formula One's 2018 Chinese Grand Prix. It is more useful section then really redundant "Whitewashes" of "Final frame deciders". 46.211.158.165 (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Well said Pawnkingthree. This section can go completely. This is not a stats site. Detailed stuff about rankings/points and the like should either not be on wikipedia at all or it should be hidden away on a less important page. It's like the business of frame by frame scores. They shouldn't happen. When the match is over add the score. This is an encyclopedia maintaining interesting/useful stuff for posterity. As to where someone lives, that is not relevant. This is written in the English language. No one gets priority whether this native language is English or not. Nigej (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * By your opinion, long-read Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 is not a "stats site", two-screen 2018 Australian Open is not a "stats site", but short section of 2018 World Snooker Championship is a "stats site"? 46.211.158.165 (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 is "hidden away on a less important page". A clear stats page. 2018 World Snooker Championship is an important page, one of the most important for snooker. We don't need it to be a miss-mash of stats. They can go in a subsidiary page if necessary. As to what they do in Tennis, that can be discussed there if you wish. Nigej (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC).
 * Yes, the endless updating of matches in progress are meaningless in an encyclopedia. But some editors mistake the pages for sportsites. I don’t mind, though, as I don’t really see a problem in that. mrloop (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As you say, it's no big deal. But it is perhaps an indication that some folk are misunderstanding what wikipedia is about. Results are good, Something like "representation by country" is perhaps interesting, but not a core aspect of the page.
 * I have contributed to "Seeding list" sections on pages such as 2018 World Grand Prix in the past. I believe this section has its merit, but only prior to the announcement of the actual draw. For example, see this revision from 2 months before the start of the tournament. The section explains how a player can qualify and which players are on their way to doing so. This specific information is not available elsewhere on Wikipedia, not even in the "ranking points" articles, because they don't show provisional ranking points for future cut-off points. Also, as you can see, the provisional seedings in this old revision are properly referenced. So, before a final seeding list or draw is announced, I believe there is enough reason to keep this section in existence for tournaments that use ranking points to determine who can enter, i.e. the Masters, the World Grand Prix, Players Championship and World Championship. However, as soon as the official draw is announced, the section has no more value and can be removed. Per89 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr./Ms./Mrs. 46.211.121.120 from Kiev (I don’t know why you find our whereabouts important, but that’s okay). I have already told you, that you are welcome to make a list of seeded players. I find it redundant, but I don’t mind. However, if you want a section depicting the progress of players in the main field, you do so for the whole main field. Not half of it. I have given you two options: Keep the list with all the 32 main field participants or drop the list altogether. Personally I’m in favor of the latter, but you insist on a third option – depicting half of the field and ignoring the other half. That is not an acceptable solution. Yes I have drawn your attention to the 2018 World Grand Prix and 2018 Players Championship, but you failed to respond. Just as you have failed to respond to anything, but insist on repeating your unsupported personal opinions. As I have already told you, the lists on the two tournament pages in question depict all participants.  Just as such a list should do at the World Championship, if you insist on its presence in the first place. I realize of course, that you find it difficult to dissect my words – or that you pretend to find it difficult, anyway. But it really shouldn’t be that hard. Instead of endless repetitions, for once try responding to my words. Your dishonest form of communication makes me assume that you can’t bring any argumentation to the table. mrloop (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * One correction only. The lists on the two tournament pages in question depict all seeded participants. And both are named "seeding list". And LOL, your words such as "retard" (see above) is a very "honest form of communication". 46.211.108.39 (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You do know, that all the players in the two tournaments, I directed your attention to, are seeded, right? If you are able to answer yes here, I might begin calling you "genius" instead. It is your endless circle-argumentation and misrepresentations, that are dishonest, my friend. mrloop (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter, all players were seeded or not. Such seeding sections in sports articles were made for seeded players only (tennis, table tennis, badminton etc), but not for all players of tournament. 46.211.120.25 (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The set of all seeded players is equal to the set of all players, when all players are seeded. Are you able to recognize that much? Since you haven’t brought a single piece of argumentation to support your personal opinion, it might make some sense to ask you directly.. Why do you find it helpful to have a section, that depicts the progress of seeded players in the tournament, while ignoring the other half of the main field? mrloop (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Very simply. When seeded players are equal to all players then seeded (all) players should be shown. When seeded players are not equal to all players then also seeded (not all) players should be shown. There is no reason to show the 98th and 129th-ranking players in a top section. Table is a helpful for readers (see argumentation above in bold). Repeatedly, such sections help readers better understand the tournament situation for top players (out of play, or advanced to next stage) and show the ranking changes (for example, who will be the first-second-third in rankings after the tournament). There are no arguments against, as of now. 46.211.26.223 (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So you find it helpful on the page for the World Snooker Championship to have a section and table, that depicts the progress of half of the main field, while ignoring the other half. I think you should stick to the tennis pages, you refer to a lot, my friend. Just an honest recommendation mrloop (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The section is not helpful to readers and putting it in bold does not change this. It is a duplication of the information already shown in the Main Draw section. Rankings only change after a cut off and this information is already included in the main ranking points article Snooker_world_ranking_points_2017/2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.155.104 (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. (and apologizing, I didn't know how to correspond my signature with my username until now) ~ Thomas Kirk Larsen (mrloop) (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Let's get rid of the "Seeding" section completely. Nigej (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅--QBear (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree — Arguably the most important aspect of the post-wc rankings is tour survival as far as the players are concerned (i.e. who is in the top 64 and who is outside it) and anybody interested can look up the points article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree - P.S thanks for everybody's hard work on this and other snooker related wiki pages - they are excellent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.214.82.27 (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree — No need to state one and the same thing a hundred times. That's why revisions are made/calculated. Otherwise, they would be useless. NuclearMissile (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Section indeed has no value once the main draw (or seeding list) is published. Therefore it can be removed in the current version of the article. However, I would like to note that the section does have value when seedings are not final yet. Please look for my other comment on this page (same timestamp) for my reasoning. Per89 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - However, as a general point of principle, we shouldn't normally be adding sections we know we're going to delete later. This is an encylcopedia preserving stuff for posterity. Nigej (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – I agree, but I would emphasize the word "normally". In this case, we would only be deleting the section because the information contained within it will still be preserved, but shown in a different way (i.e. the final tournament bracket instead of a provisional list). While the seeding list is still provisional, it does have encyclopaedic value (just like any ranking of any ongoing sports event, from the snooker world rankings to the Formula One World Championship, just to name a few). Removing the section once the seeds are final, but listing the seeds in the tournament bracket instead, would be a graphical change more than anything else. Per89 (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Representation by Country section
Seems an opportune time to see what people think of the "2018 World Snooker Championship" section. As well as here, we have a similar section in 2016 International Championship, 2016 English Open (snooker), 2016 Northern Ireland Open (called Representation from different countries), 2017 Scottish Open (snooker) and 2018 Welsh Open (snooker). Last year we had a 2017 World Snooker Championship. Otherwise we don't have such a section (correct me if I'm wrong). Personally I'm not a great fan of the idea. Players don't "represent" a country in these events. Some sports use similar tables a lot (eg Darts, also eg 2017 Open Championship) and others not at all (can't find anything at 2017 Wimbledon Championships for instance). Perhaps worth noting that we have various sections, like List of world snooker champions, Masters (snooker), Maximum break which also contain summaries by country. (I know that similar issues come up with the use of flagicons but that particular issue has been discussed countless times before. At least with the flags we are relatively consistent in our usage in the hundreds of tournaments covered) Nigej (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't like it either. Seems like more unnecessary trivia.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I actually like it for the World Championships, because it provides a nice overview of the distribution of players across the World. And if it is continued for the WC's, it will provide an overview of the degree of international development in snooker. But that's just my two cents. I guess, it's all in the eye of the beholder. I'm not a big fan of the "Whitewashes" and "Final frame deciders" sections, however. I don't see their relevance. The same goes for the rest of the "Players' statistics" section. ~ Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashes/Final Frame Deciders
The stats section is growing to a ridiculous size. This is not a stats site. I propose that we remove the Whitewashes and Final Frame Decider sections. There are simply a rehash of earlier information and of very little interest. Nigej (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The players statistics section should be removed entirely. It's pointless trivia. If it's important, it can be written elsewhere in prose. These articles tend to be mostly statistics, whereas they should be mostly prose and description (and other information from the event), with statistics backing it up.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * My thoughts on the issue are stated in my comment above. Under the "Representation by Country section". I'm not a big fan of the "Whitewashes" and "Final frame deciders" sections. I don't see their relevance. The same goes for the rest of the "Players' statistics" section. However, I like the Representation by Country section for the World Championships, because it provides a nice overview of the distribution of players across the World. And if it is continued for the WC's, it will provide an overview of the degree of international development in snooker. But that's just my two cents. I guess, it's all in the eye of the beholder.~ Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Technical issues?
Anyone know what the technical issues with the draw were? "World number 22 Perry called it "an absolute joke" as qualifiers like himself "have no idea when we are playing, have to book hotels and make travel plans". (https://www.bbc.com/sport/snooker/43814793) Being impartial I couldn't possibly comment. Nigej (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Report what the sources say. Technical issues could be anything, I'd use the source to prove that players were annoyed by the issues, but nothing else.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Reception?
I don't think the comments about the draw warrant a separate section on this page. If the info should be included at all, I think it should be placed in the tournament summary section instead. ~ Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Perhaps in the section where the qualification/qualifiers are discussed. Nigej (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That would completely ruin the flow of the article. The idea would be for the reception section to be fleshed out with more information as the tournament moves along. Going on a tangent in the tournament summary is not a great idea.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I moved it to the end of the article. That helps. ~ Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My mistake. That's where it should be. Thanks  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That depends on whether it ever will be fleshed out. There's nothing similar in previous years I think. Nigej (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * However, regular event articles on Wikipedia have places for this. I was looking to flesh out these things on earlier tournaments as well. The reception section of most articles is one of the most important.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, the reception section might be the most unimportant in this article. ~ Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * A "reception" section containing events and quotes from before the event even started, and listing it under "aftermath", that makes no sense at all to me. I say remove the reception section. If there is actual useful content for it in the future, it can always be brought back to life. Per89 (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it needs a new title, having looked at it. I changed it to "event information", but I'm not sure it's much better. Our jobs is to cover the event as a whole, so anything that gets covered by reliable sources, we should also at least mention. There's been a lot of controversies, that should be mentioned on the page. I'm up for discussing where this information should go, but it shouldn't be swept under the rug. I wanted to add a bit of information on the playing surface, as I know table 1 is playing a bit odd, but no ones really mentioned it in the media.


 * I'd say that the reactions from players when they leave should always be mentioned on the world championship events, with Bingham stating he's taking time off being something worth commenting on.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:GA
I have placed the article for WP:Copy edit, and has now been completed by (who did a fantastic job, as always). Would anyone be against me placing the article for a potential GA nomination?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Pre-FAC comments
Just in case the article is taken over to FAC, here are my thoughts on what might be picked up, as I promised I would do (some time ago!!).
 * The lead is a little too short. Admittedly I struggle when constructing Boat Race leads, but usually three paragraphs for an article of this size would be the norm.  Go through and see if you can bring a sentence or two to bear out of each section in the article...  Immediate omissions could be hosting organisation," prize fund, top prize, top break in the tournament...
 * Added the above. Still feel it needs more though.


 * "third and 21st" need to check MOS:NUM (cats and dogs) for this.
 * Is the 2015 logo still valid for the 2018 Championship, no changes whatsoever? Could you find a 2018 version?
 * I'll take a look. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Check out MOS:FLAG. I think this kind of article is a reasonable candidate to have such decorative flags removed as all the players are playing for themselves, and their nationality isn't directly relevant.  Worth ironing this out first time round before hitting any of the other snooker articles up...
 * I think this one might get a lot of fightback from WP:SNOOKER, but I can find out. I understand the overuse of flags, but it's a very common usage on tournament sports articles. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "the game of snooker.[1] The sport of snooker" reads repetitive and odd...
 * I agree. I've Just said Snooker. Hopefully that is better. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * A few MOS things, e.g. "championship 7 times" seven, and " final 18-15. " should use en-dash, i.e. " final 18–15. ", worth checking across the whole article.
 * I've changed this example, but I'll give the article a full copyedit to check later. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "The winner of the 2018 event earns..." tense.
 * "1st", "number 1", again MOSNUM here.
 * Image captions should follow WP:CAPFRAG so "complete" sentences need a full stop.
 * For whatever reason, someone took them all out. I've put them back in Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * In the "Second round" section, you link the 2008 and 2012 WCs, you didn't do that when talking about which finals each of the world champions and finalists had been in... be consistent, but also pay heed to WP:EASTER (I often link various editions of the Boat Race this way but always include "race" somewhere, e.g. "the 2012 race", or "the 2012 and 2013 races"...
 * Should these just be removed? I've changed as above; I've not listed the events that they won in fear of overlinking, however, I think t's important to note this was a rematch of two prior championship finals (as was listed in several sources). Much like if Jimmy White had met Stephen Hendry in the second round of the world championships, it would be important to note they had met in 4 prior finals of the event. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * In general I tend to avoid single-sentence paragraphs.
 * Changed. I'll potentially expand the prizefund section. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * A lot of unexplained bold used in the latter stages of the article.
 * I've tried to explain this, much as with the brackets Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Notes, like [c] should also be referenced if they're making claims.
 * No worries, it's listed in the main reference for this section, which I've implimented. 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Adam Stefanów doesn't appear to have a diacritic in his Wikipedia common name...
 * Moved the article. No idea why it wasn't already listed like this. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "across europe" obvious...
 * removed. Although, it;s not 100% obvious, as EuroSport (despite the name) doesn't broadcast to the whole of Europe, and can be watched in places outside of Europe I believe. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "The event was also broadcast by World Snooker internationally on Facebook, having been broadcast ..." try to avoid repeating words in a single sentence, for me it's always jarring prose.
 * Reworded. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Avoid spaced hyphens ( - ), those should be spaced en-dashes (per MOS:DASH), i.e. ( – ).
 * There's a script that does this, (Which I had run), but for whatever reason, it missed some. I ran it again, and it should be good now. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a quick run-through, happy to expand, re-visit etc! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! I've put some changes into effect. I hope this is nearer the FA class that I was looking for. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Flags
How is attempting to comply with the MOS "forcing through personal preferences"? This article is undergoing an FA review and we are being told there that this change is necessary. There is no need for every snooker article do be uniform. Do we even have any FA snooker articles? I doubt it. It would be a real shame if it were to fail over this issue.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , don't fall for their claims. Their insistence that usage of flagicon will block this from reaching FA status is patently untrue. Those two users have been trying the same game on multiple snooker articles now. I myself have successfully shepherded a number of sports articles through FAC's and these icons weren't even mentioned during them. They are just plainly wrong. flagicon is a carefully chosen template which is even accessible to blind people. Those two are just trying to game system. One of the two users vocally strongly opposing to use flagicon on Snooker article, relying on an unsupported claim that it will block getting FA's, nominates such an article as a FAC and shortly afterwards the other user that was vocally strongly opposing to use flagicon along them arrives to post a reviewing "oppose" because of the usage of just that template. That's no coincidence and really really low behavior. The only ones thinking that change is necessary is them two and it's coincidentally them two who coincidentally just now create a FAC where them two claim it is necessary?? I too would like Snooker to have a number of FA's but the reason that we have none yet is not this template. The most important reason is that most articles simply aren't comprehensive enough. We can mostly get a number of these articles to FA with the contested template.Tvx1 13:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK well I was going by the link to MOS:FLAG linked in the review which states the name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag. I guess he need to wait for other reviewers to weigh in. One thing that will definitely fail it is an edit war, so I hope we can reach some kind of compromise.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be best to just keep the long-time stable version before these two arrived and see what other issues are reported by independent reviewers. I'll be happy to help out with any of the content issues. As for other snooker FA's, has any other snooker article ever been nominated as a FAC? If so, whey did it/they actually fail? Maybe that will tells how can really improve these articles.Tvx1 14:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It also says "Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name, especially in a list or table." so attaching names to all flags is clearly overkill. Naming the first use of a particular flag in each table would satisfy the MOS. I would also recommend removing all flags from the "Century breaks" section. Nigej (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I should mention to the above that I have been discussing promoting this article for FA for around two months. I don't really have much of a preference in terms of how to handle these things, but I do want to promote to FA. We can change to whatever version is suitible for passing an FA (I've worked very hard on Snooker articles for a while, and have many GAs in the field). In my eyes, neither the flag or flagicon templates are really right, as we should really use flagathlete. Every other FA I've seen uses this for sports articles. I would suggest it might be more helpful to help out the FA nomination (where there has only been comments from one user); rather than editwarring. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes flagathelte would be better than flag. However it is still clear that we don't need to use it every time we use flagicon. "Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name, especially in a list or table." makes that quite clear. Nigej (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Before these two arrived?" I wrote 43% of this article, and pushed through the GA nomination. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, upon closer inspection it does appear that it's The Rambling Man who is really the one making such a drama about these flagicons despite being repeatedly pointed out that they do not form an objection for an article to reach FA, while also being unnecessarily denigrating everyone disagreeing with them. They just don't have anything supporting their claim. Apologies to you since I appear to have dragged you into this unnecessarily. You have done a lot of edits to ensure the comprehensiveness of these articles. On the matter of the flagicon template, I feel that while it does not follow the letter of that part of the MOS it does conform to its spirit and thus the notice on top of it insisting to use common sense. It's a carefully thought out template that even caters to blind people. Everyone can find out what the icons stand for. Given that no complaints about not recognizing flags have been raised for as long as this article has existed, I feel that problem is being overstated and given the evidence of several precedent I do not believe this constitutes a problem at all for this article to become a FA.Tvx1 17:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Which part of "it doesn't comply with MOS" (criterion 2 at FAC) don't you understand? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Part a,b and c (all parts actually) of that criterion which do not mention flagicons at all. What part of "use common sense" of the notice on top of MOS don't you understand? As I explained before, the template DOES meat the goal of that part of the MOS in that it assures that all readers can find out the flagicons' meanings. And as I explained before, many articles have become FA's with this template in use and without it even been raised during their FAC. No matter how many times you raise your objections, it just doesn't change the fact you're wrong. Stop making such a gigantic mountain out of a molehill.Tvx1 19:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, are you seriously saying that FAC criteria should be mentioning flag icons??!! Wow.  Adherence to MOS is a requirement.  If you don't like it, and yes, "other stuff exists", then continue to edit war to preserve your personal preference, against MOS.  But as such, there's no point in continuing this.  FAC failed, for as long as you continue to deliberately contravene MOS.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And I offered a dumpload of great advice because I've actually bothered to take numerous niche sporting articles to FA. Anyone else around here can say that? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"Long time stable version", "before these two arrived", " reported by independent reviewers". Complete WP:OWN. Simple as that. The project is, sadly, doomed while people exercise their preference over MOS. P.S. Your tone and accusations are overt personal attacks. You need to stop soonest or else we'll see each other at ANI where "independent reviewers" can assess your attacks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You really have some guts to start lecturing are editors about tone and personal attacks, when it is you yourself who can't refrain from spouting these with unnecessary comments like "this project is doomed". Unless you stop with such sarcasm and denigrating comments you're not getting anywhere. These are just not needed. As I have stated again and again, no one is deliberately trying to stop these articles from getting FA.Tvx1 17:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes they are, deliberately editing against FA criterion 2. Stop attacking other editors, see WP:NPA. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You should stop lecturing other user's about issuing PA's when you have done nothing but the same over the last few days.Tvx1 19:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are the only one to have launched personal attacks. Disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite on the contrary. You're the one who starting launching them. You have quite the guts to make a claim like the above one.Tvx1 20:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Show me one single personal attack. You're wrong, you continue to be wrong in multiple locations here, and it's not going to make a shred of difference continuing to ignore MOS --> no MOS compliance, no FA.  Things might have been different when you got your one FA through, but no longer do we accept such abuse of icons.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not up to you to decide. You keep acting like you have some authority which you quite patently do not have. Your contributions do not carry any more weight than any other ones.Tvx1 11:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fail. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have nothing better to contribute here, than it would be better if you just leave this FAC alone and let it be dealt with by the editors who actually want to make meaningful efforts to getting this articles to FA. This is getting really ridiculous.Tvx1 12:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The only effort going on around here is by those determined to sink the FAC by imposing contra-MOS edits as their own personal preference. Your assessment of my contribution is so far off the mark it can only be a joke.  Now then, back to the regular schedule. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See, that's another prime example of on of your personal attacks you allegedly don't make. Here are some more:, , . Again, if you're willing to collaborate meaningfully with these users it would be best that you do not contribute to this FAC at all and leave it to the editors who are actually willing to collaborate on getting this tio FA.Tvx1 12:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to re-familiarise yourself with the meaning of "personal". I have provided plenty of meaningful input to this process, unlike just about anyone else I might add.  If you can't see that, or be bothered to find it, it's not my problem.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * World Snooker Championship 2015 Logo.png