Talk:2022 Masters (snooker)

Ding's non-entry
We should probably make a point of referencing that this is the first time since Ding's first appearance at the Masters (2004 iirc?) where he won't feature, ending a consecutive 16 year run appearance in the Mtournament (the 2004 and 2005 editions were via the wildcard qualifying round) as a result of a decrease in his ranking points over the last 2 years since 2019. Ding's lack of presence at the tournament is notable in that it capitulated him into the public eye, iirc. --CitroenLover (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Not showing all "seed/ranking" numbers?
I do understand how the draw works, but for previous years articles the "unseeded" 8 players still have a number/seed/ranking whatever besides their name in the brackets. Check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8085:7160:3B80:408A:5E81:B27B:3254 (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
I have been trying to update and improve the article in good faith over the past week, but it has become frustrating to have a Wikipedia administrator (of all people) needlessly rewording correctly written sentences in ways that damage grammar and syntax, such as changing "The players then traded frames, with Higgins leveling the match at 4–4 with a 127 break" to "Higgins leveling the match at 4–4 with a 127 break" (the latter is not a grammatical standalone sentence); introducing spelling errors, such as replacing "O'Sullivan" with "O'Sillivan" or "accidentally" with "accedently"; deleting sourced and relevant material without explanation, such as my mention of the standing ovations at the Higgins/Williams match, which every published source has commented on, and which Williams himself noted as a highlight of his 30-year career; or demanding citations for obvious statements such as that six of the eight quarter-finalists were former Masters champions. This is essentially disruptive editing that harms the quality of articles while discouraging participation and consensus. It's sad to say, but further efforts to work on this article seem pointless in this environment. Enjoy today's final, everyone. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you wish to talk about someone you should always ping them to a discussion. You could have easily talked to me about these issues rather than talk about me on a talk page. Wikipedia is a collaborative process, where we do all edit one article. We do have rather strict rules on things being sourced, so saying that six of the eight players had won the event before is fine, but only if a source has made that connection previously. It also doesn't meet WP:BLUE. It has previously been discussed that the phrase "traded frames" isn't suitable as it doesn't have much meaning, especially if you later then explain who won which frames. We all make spelling mistakes, and I apologise if these have caused you to not wish to continue editing the article. The piece about the "standing ovation" feels very crufty to me. Feel free to re-add this if it feels pertinent to you. This is not in any way disruptive editing. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to talk to me about anything, I'm not here to hurt anyone or their editing. I always leave an edit summary, but no one can expect their wording to go unchanged on a collaborative encyclopedia. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how to "ping" someone to a discussion or talk to them elsewhere. As for requiring sources, it's apparently okay to say, without sources, that O'Sullivan has won the tournament seven times, that Williams is a two-time champion, or that Robertson formerly won the event in 2012, but not to say that six of the quarter-finalists have won the event before. Demanding sources for some such statements but not others is inconsistent and subjective. The issue is not with making occasional spelling mistakes but with gratuitously rewriting other people's contributions per your own stylistic preferences, often in ways that frequently introduce grammatical, spelling, and syntactical errors and make the article choppy and less readable. You make the point that "Wikipedia is a collaborative process, where we do all edit one article," but when an administrator is micromanaging the content, tone, and style of articles on a sentence-by-sentence level, rewriting everyone else's contributions and deleting sourced material without explanation or discussion (other than "feels very crufty to me" — and what does that even mean, other than that your subjective opinion matters more than others' contributions?) it does not feel collaborative. If feels like one person is trying to be sole arbiter of what an article should contain and how it should be written, and also feels like others' contributions are not valued. That's the very opposite of what Wikipedia should be. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You can ping with the ping template, or by leaving them a note on their talk page. First off, I'd like to say that in no way do I not appreciate your contributions. You've done some sterling work on adding match reports, and otherwise. If I have given you the impression that I've just been overwriting your own work, then I apologise. I do know, however, what reviewers look for when an article goes to WP:GAN and WP:FAC, which is where I'd like to take this article, as I have done for the previous two Masters events. To avoid unnecessary drama, feel free to revert/change any edits that I have made, and I'll be more than happy to discuss which ones I stand by so we can gain a consensus on the article.


 * We actually do source that O'Sullivan won the event seven times, but you are right that Williams' and Robertson's record isn't in the sources provided, so we can remove that. WP:CRUFT is a big issue on our articles, such as saying that all of the semi-finalists are left handers. Even though some RS comment on this, it seems more like WP:TRIVIA than anything else. I can see that the fan reaction was covered quite a bit in RS, but to me it seems a bit like a self-insert than a summary of the competition. However, this one is clearly much more likely to be important, so willing to let this one go.


 * As an aside, although I have administrative powers, it doesn't give me any more or less powers in this article, and I have never tried to use them as such. I am just a regular editor. I really hope you are enjoying the event, and I'll leave your edits alone. :).Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)