Talk:Ronnie O'Sullivan/Archive 4

Colors in that table
Great table with all his results, but when you look at it you first see his wins in green and then his semi-finals in yellow ... and then you wonder where all his 2nd places are. What you find is that those are marked in this totally "invisible" color and the letter 'F'. I would have found it much more natural to have them in light green and marked with '2' or '2nd' or maybe 'RU' ... but '2' would be prefered as non-native speakers (as myself) would understand it straight away. I just think that the table as it is does not convey his true success at first glance as it almost hides all the finals he reached but did not win. JB. --92.193.198.168 (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there might be something wrong with your display. Getting to a final is currently written in purple, with an unbolded F. Such as:

This is the style across all Snooker bios.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP could also be partially color-blind. That said we should always endeavor to use color schemes that color-blind people can interpret (this is part of Wikipedia's accessibility requirements) and are independent of display settings. I do know for instance that when my laptop runs in low-power mode on the battery everything is dimmer and that sometimes has an effect on the background highlighting. If the editor is still around perhaps he could help us isolate the problem. For example, if the highlighting becomes visible by just turning the brightness up or down on his display then all we have to do to solve the problem is use a different shade of the same color. Betty Logan (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, seems you don't agree with me :-) ... fair enough. Actually I'm neither color blind nor is my screen at fault. I still see the yellow much more pronounced than the purple (sorry, that word escaped me when I wrote the initial post). Meanwhile I also noticed that the color scheme is the same everywhere so there's little chance that anyone would change it. Anyway, just as the opinion of a single guy ... I think the purple does not properly reflect the location between green and yellow, neither in hue nor in strength. Case closed from my side and thanks for commenting !! JB. --92.195.19.191 (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi IP User, actually I think a lot of us would be open to new colours, but we'd need to see what sort of proposition there were for these.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with you there. One of the big problems with the table is that it is too wide for my screen. I need to scroll to see the recent events but then the event falls off the other side. We're already down to 85% size. Not sure what the solution is but if we're going for a change of colours it would, perhaps, make sense to do other things at the same time. Did a quick search and came up with 262 tables. Nigej (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Lee, pls feel free to use my initials (JB) instead of "IP user" :-) ... Concerning the color scheme ... I agree that it is a very difficult and probably controversial subject and one would want to get it 100% right in order to merrit any recoloring effort. So how do I see this (no pun intended) ? Well I guess there are two kinds of users - people who want to take a quick look and get an impression and people with a true academic interest who are going to look at that table for some time in order to extract information. From my POV there are different requirements for those two groups. The second group, lets call them professionals, will basically take the time to figure out any scheme there is and get used to it. So there we would probably just want to avoid to put up obstacles that would make reading any harder than it needs to be. The first group on the other hand, maybe called visitors, will not take the time to wrap their brains around a more complicated labeling system. For them it would be great if the table would enable a direct and intuitive impression. That should also benefit the students I suppose. From my POV I would generally suggest there to be a consistent gradient from 1st place over runner up and semi-finalist downwards. Such a gradient could be a color (hue) gradient or a brightness or saturation gradient or a combination of them. Using only hue would probably not be so great for people with color blindness or bad screens as Betty pointed out. I'm not sure about using only saturation for the same reasons. Brightness on the other hand should work fine, but I suppose a combination would be best. The problem with all that is that it would require to find the right text color for each background color and that text color would have to appear neutral. I would avoid a very colorful scheme as this might make it hard to look at the table for a longer time as things start to swirl in front of ones eyes.
 * Just as a quick example I would find it more natural to have dark green for the winner, a lighter green for second place and a lighter yellow (same strength or a bit less than the light green) for the semi-finalists. But figuring out a complete scheme would take some time. I also wonder about the lettering inside. Personally I could probably grasp things faster if the boxes were labled like 32, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1 ... but that's just me and I'm 100% sure most people would hate that.
 * Concerning the width of the table ... Yeah, I think it's unavoidable but might be made more useful if there were additional columns inserted that would keep you oriented. They might contain a 2- or 3-letter code for the tournament like 'WO' for "Welsh Open" or so. The same goes for the vertical movement where an additional timeline in the middle would be helpful for people who are not on a 4K screen. OK, those are my thoughts at the moment ... JB. --92.195.100.231 (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Concerning the width of the table ... Yeah, I think it's unavoidable but might be made more useful if there were additional columns inserted that would keep you oriented. They might contain a 2- or 3-letter code for the tournament like 'WO' for "Welsh Open" or so. The same goes for the vertical movement where an additional timeline in the middle would be helpful for people who are not on a 4K screen. OK, those are my thoughts at the moment ... JB. --92.195.100.231 (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Concerning the width of the table ... Yeah, I think it's unavoidable but might be made more useful if there were additional columns inserted that would keep you oriented. They might contain a 2- or 3-letter code for the tournament like 'WO' for "Welsh Open" or so. The same goes for the vertical movement where an additional timeline in the middle would be helpful for people who are not on a 4K screen. OK, those are my thoughts at the moment ... JB. --92.195.100.231 (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Split discussion
Hi All,

Due to the immense length of this article, various ideas for splitting this article are being discussed at WT:SNOOKER. This mostly revolves around creating some sub-articles, specifically for the career section. Please comment on the discussion in the WikiProject.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Lead section
I made an attempt to trim down the lead, which seemed to me to be too long. An IOP user has now returned it to basically its original form. Any comments on the two versions? As often the case with IP users there are no edit summaries. Nigej (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally I thought your re-write was superior, placing his most prominent achievements in the opening paragraph. Given that the editor has not left an WP:EDITSUMMARY it is impossible to know what the problem is and tackle their concerns. I would leave a message on their talk page inviting them to this discussion, and if they don't join it then simply restore your version tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't even wait. I'd do a revert, and point to the discussion per WP:BRD.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

"Record" in lead
He has a record seven Masters titles, and a record seven UK Championships, setting a record total of 19 Triple Crown titles. Winning the 1993 UK Championship at the age of 17 years and 358 days made him the youngest player ever to win a professional ranking title, a record he still holds. He now holds the records for the most century breaks in professional competition, the most officially recognised maximum breaks in professional competition, and the fastest competitive maximum break, compiled in 5 minutes and 20 seconds at the 1997 World Championship. Probably he'll hold the record for the most ranking titles too.

Records, records, records but we can't have a lead which simply lists them. Not sure how to resolve the situation. Nigej (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The changes are mostly ok, but I agree there is too much "record" this "record" that in the lead. I would prefer to restore the first paragraph. Editors need to stop restoring the erroneous 147 time too—even World Snooker accept it is discredited now. Betty Logan (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's my version:

Ronald Antonio O'Sullivan, (born 5 December 1975 in Wordsley, West Midlands)  is an English professional snooker player who is widely regarded as one of the greatest players in the history of the sport. Since turning professional in 1992, he has won five World Championships, seven Masters titles, and seven UK Championships, for a total 19 Triple Crown titles. His career total of 34 ranking titles is second only to Stephen Hendry's 36, while his career earnings of over £10 million put him in first place on snooker's all-time prize-money list.

O'Sullivan's achievements in snooker began at an early age. He became British Under-16 Champion at age 13 and IBSF World Under-21 Snooker Champion at 15. Winning the 1993 UK Championship at the age of 17 years and 358 days made him the youngest player ever to win a professional ranking title, a record he still holds. A prolific break-builder, he made his first competitive century break at age 10 and his first competitive maximum at age 15. He now holds the records for the most century breaks in professional competition, the most officially recognised maximum breaks in professional competition (15), and the fastest competitive maximum break, compiled at the 1997 World Championship. O'Sullivan has record title wins, for the most amount of Masters, UK and total Triple Crown championships.

Noted for his mercurial temperament, as well as his struggles with alcohol, drugs, and depression, O'Sullivan has often been a controversial figure in the sport. He has received many warnings and sanctions from its governing body over his conduct and comments, has repeatedly threatened to retire, took a prolonged a break from the sport during the 2012/2013 season, and threatened in late 2018 to form a breakaway snooker tour. Outside his playing career, O'Sullivan has worked as a pundit for Eurosport's snooker coverage, has written crime novels and autobiographies, and has starred in the miniseries Ronnie O'Sullivan's American Hustle. He was awarded an OBE in the New Year's Honours list in 2016. −

−		 −	I'd also suggest removing the sourcing from the lede, which isn't something you'd normally see in a GA  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Why not just have a summary of his main records in the lead section and a separate section titled "Records" lower down with a definitive list of them all. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Fastest break!?
The shown video from his record break from the BBC of his game at the 1997 WC says 5:20 min., but World Snooker says 5:08 min. When you watch the video, which starts with his first shot and watch the time, he sinks the last black after 5:08. That means to me, that World Snooker doesn't count the time he gets up of his chair, walk to the table and checking the situation. We have the same problem in de:WP that, from time to time, users are changing time numbers. What's your clue? How do you handle it? World Snooker seems to be official. Regards Rafael Zink (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To me a break is the time between the first strike of the cue ball, to the time the last ball drops. I'd bring it up with the snooker WikiProject though  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there video of the previous shot, to confirm that it was 12 seconds between the previous shot coming to rest and Ronnie striking the cue ball. Nigej (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If we were to appraise the time ourselves this would count as WP:Original research. I have been researching this issue and it seems like a can of worms. Eurosport have picked up on the conflicting times here. It seems that the controversy stems from this article by Deadspin. The problem it seems, is that there is actually no official way for timing breaks. It seems the 5:20 time arises from the BBC clock, and the BBC states that "it begins timing when the cursor on the graphic moves to the active player." There is no official basis for this, it's just a BBC convention. Deadspin also noted that this method would actually produce a time of 5:17. Guinness have 5:20 down as the world record, but have a similar arbitrary policy. World Snooker told Deadspin that the break begins when the player "hits the cue ball for the first red", but this methodology would produce a a time of 5:08. World Snooker then changed their minds on this and put forward another explanation (the shot-clock method of the break starting when the balls come to rest on the previous shot) which would result in a time of 5:15. In truth, no such record ever existed at the time and techniques for timing breaks have only come to exist retrsopectively. Several methods exist for timing breaks, but none of them are standardised. It seems that World Snooker have decided the record is 5 minutes and 8 seconds after all, but I don't think this is definitive (because if Ronnie had made the maximum under the shot clock in the Premier League it would have been timed as 5 minutes and 15 seconds). Guinness aren't budging either, and still have the world record at 5 minutes and 20 seconds. It would be wrong for Wikipedia to take a position on this: we should note the controversy and present the arguments put forward for each of the possible times. Until somebody makes a maximum faster than 5 minutes and 20 seconds the record still stands regardless of the timing controversy. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So was that a yes or a no or just your usual dismissive reply. Nigej (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * They are right, though. We should only mention what sources say, nothing more.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Taking the time to look into an issue and writing out a detailed reply is not what most people would characterize as dismissive. If there is a dispute over the time then it obviously needs to be resolved through appropriate sourcing. I am going to have a go at paraphrasing the Deadspin article in the "maximum break" section. After we have something concrete in the article we can discuss improvements/refinement. Once we get that sorted we may need to adapt other references to the time throughout the article. Betty Logan (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My question was an appeal for information, to try to understand the issue. I never suggested publishing anything. Nigej (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have tried to explain the issue the best I can Nige. It's a complex issue so there isn't a decisive solution. The problem isn't the footage per se, but rather when timing the break should start. Anyway, I have made an attempt to summarise the issue at Ronnie_O'Sullivan. This doesn't have to be a final version, we can play around with the wording, but I think it addresses the basic controversy. Betty Logan (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Nobody seems to have objected to the changes I have made in the article or commented further here so I have made two further changes in the article to bring them in line with the new information. Obviously we can't keep stating the record is 5 minutes and 20 seconds when we now know this is incorrect, but the question is whether we should repalce the time with 5 minutes and 8 seconds. Personally I feel the time needs the context of an explanation (the 5:20 time is widely reported, and if a player makes a maximum in 5 minutes and 10 seconds in the Shoot-Out this would possibly be a faster maximum given the different timing methods) so I have refrained from giving an exact time in the rest of the article. I admit this is not ideal but it's the best I can come up with. If anybody has any better ideas I am open to them. Betty Logan (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

i noticed this before timing the beak myself. if World Snooker changed the time of the break to 5m 8sec we have to change it as well ok ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.183.42 (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not as simple as just correcting the time. The 5:20 time is definitely incorrect but World Snooker has contradicted itself by putting forward two conflicting timing methods depending on the format, according to Deadspin. These are now both given in the maximum break section. I think just giving the time on its own would be a bad idea and would keep getting changed back to the wrong time, so it ideally needs to be explained. Betty Logan (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Guinness has now the time at 5 minutes and 8 seconds. --BlueFire10 Let's talkabout my edits? 01:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a good find. This is about as conclusive as you can get when it comes to reliable information on records.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "From the moment that O’Sullivan first strikes the cue ball to pot his first red, the elapsed time is 5 minutes 8 seconds – a time now acknowledged by World Snooker." even gives us a definition of the start of a break. Nigej (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with updating the record to reflect the revision. However, we still need to acknowledge the old record in some capacity because it is still the better known time and we don't want editors "correcting" the new time with the old time. Betty Logan (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Having an official time is good, having prose explaining the differing times is better.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Author
Needs correcting, ' On 31 March 2019 one week after O'Sullivan returned to the world number one ranking after winning the 2019 Tour Championship the first title he has been number one in 9 years.' Should be first 'time' and the sentence should continue announcing his new nutrition book title rather than a new sentence.


 * I have made the changes for you. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Career summary
The career section should have a summary after it has been split. Without something written on his career it is not a proper article, and the Good Article status could be removed if this is not done. Hzh (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Ronnie is "widely regarded as one of the greatest players"...?
Hi folks, There's been an argument raging on the Hendry talk page about whether he should be labelled as one of the "greatest" players in the history of snooker. At the moment, he is described (in lead section) as "One of the most successful players in the modern era of snooker" as the stats speak for themselves, but to describe him as one of the "greatest" or even "THE greatest" is much more subjective and unencylopedic. However, the problem is that the lead section of O'Sullivan's article states that Ronnie is "widely regarded as one of the greatest players in the history of the sport" which is at odds with the decision to avoid this type of language in Hendry's lead, and regarded by some in the discussion as inappropriate language for the lead, especially as it is not backed up by any sources.

However, O'Sullivan's natural talent and genius are unashamedly trumpeted in his Status section lower down in the article, which also states that he's regarded by several of his peers as the "greatest player ever". The hallelujah chorus is backed up by several reliable sources so I'm not knocking it at all. I just wonder about sticking the "greatest player" label in the lead. Might it be more appropriate to say that he has "dominated the sport since the late 1990s" or something along those lines? We should probably do something about this to put it right. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't object to such epithets in the body itself but we should stick to factual, provable claims in the lead. He is one of the greatest players ever, but it is an opinion. You can quantify all his achievements: more major titles than any other player in history, the most ranking titles, the prize money record, the century record, the maximum record etc. The debate over who is the greatest will never be settled but records are permament features until they are broken. Higgins and Williams were dominating the sport at the turn of the century so I would just say that he is the most successful player of the 21st century. That is indisputably true! Betty Logan (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Should probably prefix this as the "argument" was from a blocked SPI account who was later banned for sockpuppetry. However, yes. Just go with "most successful" in the lede, and go into what people say about him in the body.
 * I don't think we should say "dominated", as I really don't believe he did dominate. He's consistently been the best player for almost thirty years, but I don't consider it the same as Davis, Reardon, Steve Davis or Hendry. All of those guys were much more condensed in when they won things, and were considered to be beaten. Since O'Sullivan has been around, other players had a season or two like that above him (Williams, Selby, Higgins)


 * We never did sort this out. Someone has challenged the statement in the lead again, so maybe we should revisit...
 * Somehow calling him one of the most "successful" players in the history of the sport doesn't do justice to his huge natural talent, anyone can be successful if they put their mind to it, but no-one can deny that Ronnie just makes it look easy. The fact is many of his peers have called him "the greatest", as heavily sourced in the Status section, where we have provided the statement "Several of his peers regard him as the greatest player ever". According to our sources (22–26), Ray Reardon believes "the Rocket is the best snooker player the sport has ever seen." (in ref.22), Graeme Dott says "he could be considered the greatest of all time" (in ref.23), John Higgins called him "the best that's ever played the game" (in ref.24), Jimmy White thinks "Ronnie is the greatest player to have ever lived" (in ref.25), and Dennis Taylor said "he is the greatest player to ever pick up a cue" (in ref.26). I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't a lot more such examples out there if we were to look for them. Not that I'm a huge Ronnie fan myself, he's never been one of my favourite players, even though I can't deny he is brilliant, but surely the most important thing is that his "greatness" does have lots of citations to back it up.
 * We wouldn't normally add lots of citations to the lead section but MOS:LEADCITE says "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead" and "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." So how would people feel about keeping "regarded as one of the greatest" in the lead as long as we provide the citations to hopefully avoid anyone challenging this statement again in future. If anyone can find any additional sources to back this up, the more the merrier. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Or maybe we just use this one!! Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol, maybe we should! I don't dispute the that he is one of the greatest (and the same for Hendry and Steve Davis for that matter) but it is still subjective. Is Alex Higgins one of the greatest too? What about Fred Davis? I just think success is easy to quantify. If you have won the most world titles, the most majors, the most pro titles, or the most ranking titles, you are indisputably one of the most successful by a standard metric in the game, and we can qualify that in the lead. I certainly don't object to having a "status" section where we can document the "claims to greatness", but ultimately the leads of snooker articles qualify success in the game and greatness is very difficult to articulate unless you start quoting his peers. Betty Logan (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think it is appropriate to use the statements ‘the greatest’ or ‘one of the greatest’ in the lead of the article. This is because the lead should be based on factual and objective information. To say he is ‘the greatest’ would clearly not be neutral as many argue that he would need to beat Hendry’s World Championship record to claim this accolade given the status of the World Championship as the most prestigious tournament (and the one all players want to win). To say he is ‘one of the greatest’ is less contentious but, in my opinion, such language should be reserved for the status section as it is subjective and warrants explanation/appropriate citation. To say he is ‘one of the most successful’ is indisputable and something I think everyone can agree on. It might not feel it is doing his achievements justice and may not keep his fan club completely content. However, you could say the same for Davies and Hendry and then end up in a circular discussion. Wikipedia is also not an advertising board or a fan page, rather it is (as far as possible) a factual Encyclopaedia. Therefore, I think we should stick with ‘one of the most successful’ in the lead. (John) 09:03, 5 October 2019 2A01:4C8:140D:E74D:5D5A:C803:2069:7F3E (talk) 08:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:140D:E74D:5D5A:C803:2069:7F3E (talk)
 * You're probably right. Appreciate you qualifying things here. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

O'sullivan's depression and addiction
These are vital issues in his career and should be added 80.233.102.21 (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi IP user. This is mentioned plenty in the prose; it doesn't really have much WP:WEIGHT in the lede of the article. I'd suggest getting consensus on the talk page. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

it should be in the lede in fairness, if i add will you leave it if everyone is happy with it?. 80.233.102.21 (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:BLP. All potentially controversial or defamatory claims about a living person need to be verified by a high-quality source. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Multiple users have described this as not suitable. Per WP:BRD you need to get a consensus to re-add the material if it is reverted. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020
In "Personal life", "English Open" links to article for the Golf Open, not the Snooker Open. Spoonhauer (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Fixed, Thank you - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Article lede
The article lede is a mess. It mixes important facts with random trivia, is poorly written and structured, and doesn't do a good job of representing ROS in an encyclopedic way to an audience that may not be familiar with him. For instance, few general readers will care about how long ROS has spent between spells as the number one ranked player; this is far too "in the weeds" for inclusion in the article lead. If mentioned at all, it should be in the body. I mention these issues here because any effort to edit and improve the lede is immediately reverted by a group of posters determined to protect the current subpar piece of writing. What can be done about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedeviled (talk • contribs) 09:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that there's at least one editor who's very keen on the stato/trivia stuff going in the lead. Probably the only way forward is to have specific debates about these things and try to come to some consensus. The "He is widely considered one of the greatest players in the history of the sport." sentence is also in this category. Nigej (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. The article isn't in particularly good shape for such an important topic. The lede is indeed quite badly written. I suggest a rewrite in this topic, and we can come to a consensus on what is a better version. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both. I have attempted to edit/rewrite the lede several times, as have others, with the goal of making it more encyclopedic. The issue isn't that we can't come up with a better lede, but that all edits to the current lede are reverted immediately. I agree that we don't need evaluations of ROS's "greatness" ... his record of 37 ranking titles, 20 Triple Crown titles, and 1000+ century breaks speaks for itself. But we also need a lede that conveys a clear sense to a general audience (that may know little or nothing about snooker) who ROS is and what his most notable achievements are. The current lede does not accomplish this.Bedeviled (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My point was that, if we have a consensus about what should go in and what not, then editors are in a much stronger position if they return any changes to the consensus position. Nigej (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. My suggestion would be to have the lede cover ROS's major career highlights and important records/milestones (37 ranking titles, 20 Triple Crown titles, record 7 Masters & UK titles, youngest player to win a ranking title, 1000+ century breaks, 15 maximum breaks, fastest maximum break, multiple times world number one, highest career prize money in the sport). The lede shouldn't try to document who held the ranking event record before ROS, exactly when ROS was world number one, or which frame of which final against which opponent ROS was playing when he made his 1000th century. This stuff can all go in the body.Bedeviled (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest having a full lede posted here that we can critique against the current version. If we have consensus that this is a better version, it's much easier for editors to revert changes away from this - per WP:BRD. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good idea. How about this? (Refs removed for now in the interest of focusing on text.)

Ronald Antonio O'Sullivan (born 5 December 1975) is an English professional snooker player from Essex. He is the reigning world champion.

A noted snooker prodigy at an early age, O'Sullivan won his first club tournament at age 9, made his first competitive century break at age 10, and achieved his first competitive maximum break at age 15. Since turning professional in 1992, he has won six World Championships, a record seven Masters titles, and a record seven UK Championships for a record total of 20 titles in Triple Crown tournaments. He holds the record as the youngest player to win a professional ranking tournament (the 1993 UK Championship, at 17 years and 358 days), and he now also holds the record for the most ranking titles in the sport, with 37. He has held the world number one ranking on multiple occasions and has won career prize money of over £11.5 million, the most by any snooker player in history.

A prolific break-builder, O'Sullivan is the only player to have achieved 1,000 career century breaks, a milestone he reached in the 2019 Players Championship final. He has also achieved the highest number of officially recognized maximum breaks in professional competition, with 15, as well as the fastest competitive maximum break, compiled in a time of 5 minutes and 8 seconds at the 1997 World Championship.

Noted for his unpredictable temperament, O'Sullivan has received many warnings and sanctions from the sport's governing body over his conduct and comments, has taken a prolonged sabbatical from the sport, and has repeatedly declared his intention to retire. Outside his playing career, he has worked as a pundit for Eurosport, has written crime novels and autobiographies, and has starred in the miniseries Ronnie O'Sullivan's American Hustle. He was awarded an OBE in the 2016 New Year Honours. Bedeviled (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty good - I'd actually suggest removing the refs from the lede anyway, and have them in the body. Might I suggest the first paragraph be expanded. The first lede paragraph needs to get across exactly what the subject is. Something saying that he is an English snooker player = great. He's the current world champion - also good. But they are notable for winning six world titles, and so many titles. The lede para should really say how they are the most successful player in the history of the Triple Crown (we can go into specifics later) and how they are considered to be one of the best players of all time. Then from para two, go into depth on their career, and later exactly what they won. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your feedback. Suggested revision:

Ronald Antonio O'Sullivan OBE (born 5 December 1975) is an English professional snooker player from Essex. As a six-time (and reigning) world champion, a record seven-time Masters champion, and a record seven-time UK champion, he is the most successful player in the history of snooker's Triple Crown series, with a record 20 titles. He also holds the record for the most ranking titles in professional snooker, with 37. His career prize money of over £11.5 million is the most by any player in snooker history.

A noted snooker prodigy from an early age, O'Sullivan won his first club tournament at age 9, made his first competitive century break at age 10, and achieved his first competitive maximum break at age 15. He won the IBSF World Under-21 Snooker Championship and Junior Pot Black before turning professional in 1992, aged 16. His first ranking title came at the 1993 UK Championship when he was 17 years and 358 days old, making him the youngest player ever to win a professional ranking event, a record he still holds. He is now also noted for his longevity in the sport, having competed in a record 28 consecutive World Championships at the Crucible from 1993–2020. Winning the 2020 World Championship at age 44 made him the second-oldest player (after Ray Reardon) to win a world title in the modern era.

A prolific break-builder, O'Sullivan is the only player to have achieved 1,000 career century breaks, a milestone he reached in the 2019 Players Championship final. He has also achieved the highest number of officially recognized maximum breaks in professional competition, with 15, as well as the fastest competitive maximum break, compiled in a time of 5 minutes and 8 seconds at the 1997 World Championship.

Noted for his unpredictable temperament, O'Sullivan has received many warnings and sanctions from the sport's governing body over his conduct and comments, has taken a prolonged sabbatical from the sport, and has repeatedly declared his intention to retire. Outside his playing career, he has worked as a pundit for Eurosport, has written crime novels and autobiographies, and has starred in the miniseries Ronnie O'Sullivan's American Hustle. He was awarded an OBE in the 2016 New Year Honours. Bedeviled (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * support changing to this version - much better. Could still be improved slightly, but this is a world better than the status quo. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. I made a couple of additional tweaks to the above. How much support is needed to replace the current lede? I don't have a good understanding of the process. Bedeviled (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * support this version - yes, much better. Nigej (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Okay, I've replaced the lede with this version. Bedeviled (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good work. Whilst this isn't a massive consensus, IMO potential changes should need similar/greater input. This is clearly better - might be able to make this article back to the GA level it is currently rated as. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Lee. I appreciate your comments! Happy to assist towards improving this and other snooker articles toward achieving more GA ratings. All the best, Bedeviled (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * :) BIanca617 (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Possible addition
Has anyone any views on whether the sentence "He has ended the year as the world number one on six occasions." is a good addition to the lede. I'm of the view that it is trivia and certainly shouldn't be there. Nigej (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ending the year first is kind of irrelevant. Being first on six occasions is closer - but it's really body material. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Under the pre-2010 system, ending the season as world number one was arguably significant because it guaranteed that player the world number one spot for the entire following season. But under the current rolling system, ending or starting a season as world number one doesn't have the same significance. In my view, noting it in the lede would only create confusion, especially when the careers of players like O'Sullivan have spanned different ranking systems. Bedeviled (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2020
2A02:859:F2:E200:B8DA:9CA5:F599:C11C (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC) After losing 6–17 to O'Sullivan in the 2008 World Championship semifinals. It's 4-17 not 6-17
 * ❌ - it was definitely 6-17 - we have plenty of sources in the article and on the 2008 World Snooker Championship article to show as well. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

SPOTY nomination
Are we of the view that being nominated for the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award is worthy of note in the lead? It seems to me that generally winning gets noted but not being nominated. Stephen Hendry gets mentioned as "BBC Scotland's Sports Personality of the Year in 1987 and 1996" but I'd put that a long long way down the list of interesting things about the man. Nigej (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not lede information. If he won it, then sure. It's an important note that there aren't many players who have been nominated, obviously Davis won it and Hendry was second in '90, but we don't even mention Hendry in his lede. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember that in the old days there weren't any nominations/shortlist, you could vote for anyone. You filled a name in and then posted it in. Not sure when nominations/shortlists came in. Nigej (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Of all his great achievements, getting nominated for SPOTY is way down the list so I don’t think it should be in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportismygame (talk • contribs) 21:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

"... directly comparing Ronnie to his peers"
Re: this recent removal, isn't that a perfectly fair summary of what's fully sourced in the article main body? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Seems to me that the 37 needs mentioning in the lede and the rest: "Widely recognised as one of the most talented and accomplished players in the history of the sport" seems accurate and succinct to me. Nigej (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edit. There seems to be an aversion to mentioning Ronnie's status as one of the best players ever, but I would point to these comparables:


 * Tiger Woods lede: "...widely regarded as one of the greatest golfers of all time and one of the most famous athletes in history."


 * Lionel Messi lede: "Often considered the best player in the world and widely regarded as one of the greatest players of all time..."


 * Tom Brady lede: "Brady is widely considered to be the greatest quarterback in NFL history."


 * Serena Williams lede: "Williams is widely regarded to be one of the greatest female tennis players of all time."


 * LeBron James lede: "Widely considered one of the best NBA players in history..."


 * Earl Strickland lede: "...considered one of the best nine-ball players of all time."


 * Mentioning Ronnie's status as one of the greatest ever snooker players is not out of place here. His record (most ranking titles, most Triple Crown titles, most century breaks, most maximums) and numerous accolades from peers, analysts, etc., all support it. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be recycling a debate, either directly or indirectly, of whether to refer to O’Sullivan and/or Hendry as one of the greatest players in the leads. I don’t think this is suitable as Wikipedia is supposed to be a factual encyclopaedia, not a fan page or biased article. It is also better suited to the status section which can offer more detail and differing opinions. Furthermore, I don’t agree with referring to other snooker players in the lead. This is a page about Ronnie O’Sullivan, not Hendry or Higgins. Sportismygame (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a series of "facts", and a lede is a summary of the rest of the article. A lot of the commentary about O'Sullivan is about them being both the most successful and one of the best players to play the sport, so the lede contains this. I don't see an issue with the current wording (which I should remind everyone has been discussed to death). Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be reading the current lede as somehow implying that Ronnie is "greater" than Hendry. I don't see that at all. Surely saying "Widely recognised as one of the most talented and accomplished players in the history of the sport" is something completely different, and comparing his 37 ranking events to Hendry's 36 is not in any sense saying he's greater than Hendry, it's just a statistical comparison. Nigej (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this possibly can be perceived as a "fan page". While it acknowledges O'Sullivan's achievements, it also notes that he has been a difficult, temperamental and controversial character who has had more than his fair share of personal problems and disciplinary issues. He also at times has gone for years without winning much, and the article acknowledges this. It's also perfectly reasonably to situate a player's achievements in relation to other players. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like I’m out voted by the Ronnie fans. Contributing to anything snooker related is getting tedious for this reason. Sportismygame (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you would think this article is partisan. Wikipedia is built on consensus. This article isn't superb, but I don't think the wording of the lede is the issue. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm no Ronnie fan. And this is not a vote. I just think the lead should summarise the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

is a good example of my earlier comment. They stated on my most recent edit “your numbers show that their success rates are basically identical.” The lead focuses on 1 ranking title of a difference in favour of Ronnie but anything which counters that isn’t deemed worth mentioning because the numbers are “basically identical”. I don’t think there is much point adding the statement back in and amending my sources because the Ronnie fan club will steamroll against any objective balance to the page. Sad state of affairs. Sportismygame (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The lede doesn't focus "on 1 ranking title of a difference in favour of Ronnie"; it says Ronnie's got 37 and Hendry's got 36, and our readers have enough brains to realise that that's not a big difference. In contrast, your addition: "O’Sullivan has although played more ranking tournaments than Hendry, with Hendry winning a higher percentage of ranking tournaments played than O’Sullivan." fails to mention ANY numbers, so readers cannot make a judgement about whether the difference is significant. Personally, I'm no fan of Ronnie, but I'm not Ronnie-hater either. Nigej (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * So would you be in favour of me adding the number of ranking tournaments Hendry and Ronnie have played and won? Sportismygame (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to be aware that we're not in the business of original research. If you can find reliable sources (newspapers/online articles/etc) that discuss "the number of ranking tournaments Hendry and Ronnie have played and won", then a summary of what those articles say might well be suitable for the article. I suspect you might find that quite difficult. There's plenty out there about the number of ranking tournaments won, which is one of the reasons why we mention it here. Nigej (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles should be written to benefit readers who don't necessarily have prior knowledge of the subject matter. Therefore, it's important that the lede convey a sense of who O'Sullivan is, his status in the sport, his notable achievements and records, and how he compares to other players. It's no different to how the article on Novak Djokovic compares his record to those of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. The article lede correctly notes that O'Sullivan has more ranking titles, more Triple Crown titles, more century breaks and more maximums than any other player, while the Hendry lede notes that Hendry has won more World Championships in the modern era than any other player. No such statement creates any bias. They are all just widely documented facts. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The biggest issue for me is the very first sentences compare O’Sullivan and Hendry by ranking titles. This is an inappropriate comparison because, as every snooker fan knows, there are much more ranking titles played per season now than during Hendry’s prime. O’Sullivan has played more ranking events and Hendry has actually won a higher percentage of ranking events played than O’Sullivan. However, this context is too detailed for the lede. If you want to compare O’Sullivan and Hendry then triple crowns would be a more appropriate comparison. Sportismygame (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you are reading the same article as me. It's clearly saying he has the record for the most titles, and has surpassed Hendry. That isn't a comparison. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I was hoping for a better response than effectively “I don’t know what you are talking about”. It is clear an indirect comparison is being made between the two players. I’d rather the lede just focused on Ronnie rather than an indirect nod to him over Hendry in the rather tedious “greatest” debate. But I do feel trying to build consensus with snooker fans who are invariably also big Ronnie fans is extremely difficult so I will leave it at that. Sportismygame (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this discussion necessarily has anything to do with editors being "big Ronnie fans". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Even if I were a fan of O'Sullivan (I'm not), Wikipedia works on a consensus basis. You seem to want to either shoehorn a bit about Hendry winning a higher percentage of events (which isn't really commented on by RS), or to not compare him against his peers at all - which is something that RS do all the time. I would recommend dropping the stick.Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: the direct comparison with Hendry would be reasonable if it was triple crowns. However, comparing by ranking titles in the lede without context (eg relative to number of tournaments played) is a poor comparison. Sportismygame (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Or is it just you who are making a biography making this connection? The lede is a summary of what is said in the rest of the article. We have a section that comments on his status, and we have summarised that.Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This thread now 11KB and 1570 words. Time to call it a day? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep, may as well. Can’t compete against the “C’MOOON ROOOONNIE” mob. Sportismygame (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I see. Well, if I ever come across them, I'll pass on your apologies. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I wrote the offending sentence in question. For the record, I also noted that O'Sullivan's 20 Triple Crown titles surpass the previous records held by Hendry and Davis, but that part was deleted by another editor. My point would be that if we just throw out the figures of 37 and 20 in isolation, they mean nothing to someone who doesn't know snooker. For context, it helps to provide info on how O'Sullivan compares to other top players in the history of the sport. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * That has been my entire point. 37 ranking titles means nothing without the context that Ronnie has benefited from playing during a period when there are much more ranking tournaments played per season than in Hendry’s day. As such, Ronnie has played more ranking tournaments and has actually won a lower percentage of ranking tournaments played than Hendry. So if you are going to directly reference Hendry in the lede and say that Ronnie has surpassed him in this regard, it is only right to give this context. If this is too much detail for the lede, then I think the direct comparison with Hendry should be dropped. Whilst this seems very logical to me, for some reason others disagree. Sportismygame (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Fine, I've edited the lede to make the point of comparison O'Sullivan's 20 Triple Crown titles versus Hendry's 18, while still noting O'Sullivan's record of 37 ranking titles. These stats are directly comparable since there have been 3 Triple Crown tournaments each year all through both players' respective careers. I hope this addresses your concern that a comparison of ranking titles is somehow biased in favour of O'Sullivan. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My complaint would be that I was unaware that Hendry had 18 triple crown wins, since I don't think that was widely reported in the past, whereas I was well aware that he had 36 ranking event wins, since that was widely reported. So I wondering if we're rewriting history here (making a big thing of his beating Hendry's triple crown wins). Nigej (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Hendry lede does state that "His total of 18 Triple Crown tournament wins is surpassed only by Ronnie O'Sullivan's 20," so it was there too. The BBC has certainly made numerous references to O'Sullivan's 20 Triple Crown titles versus Hendry's 18. Arguably "ranking title" no longer carries the weight it once did, in an era when the Gibraltar Open with a best-of-7 final counts as a ranking title just as much as the World Championship, and so the emphasis has shifted to Triple Crown titles instead. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Great, much better. Works for me Sportismygame (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Earnings
What's the source for O'Sullivan's earnings? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've thought for awhile that these infoboxes are too precise. They should be updated to a value in a reliable source, and have a date that was published. For instance, I believe O'Sullivan's career earnings was published in the last season's finale of snooker scene (I'll check in the morning), but I'd assume people just either use OR, or take it from cuetracker. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Violinski. I mean is there any source at all in the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt it; this article is a bit of a mess. Prize money tends to be something that tabloids post more about. Like I said, I can have a look in snooker scene. Personally, I don't really care too much about the prize money, but maybe in this case, stating he's won the most of any player is worth keeping. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Judd Trump hug
User:Robynthehode, regarding your use of rollback here, on my recent addition, with the edit summary "Trivia, this is an encyclopaedia (RW 16.1)": I added this "After the match O’Sullivan wrapped his arms around Trump, sharing a tight hug for more than a minute, later revealing that he had been left "sobbing"." This has been covered by a number of WP:RS news sources. It is far from "trivia" and, as far as I know, is quite exceptional in professional snooker generally or in the history of the World Snooker Championship. In fact, it was mentioned, as "a hug which lasted more than a minute", by Sarah Montague on today's The World at One on BBC Radio 4. It was a vivid demonstration of O'Sullivan's emotional temperament and should be briefly mentioned somewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it is plainly trivia. WP:NOTGOSSIP applies. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you think this detail was "gossip"? Viewing figures peaked at 4.1 million Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read the policy: "Not every facet of a celebrity's life... is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person." To be significant, this fleeting moment (and it's significance) would need to be being discussed in several years time; right now, it's trivia. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is hardly "every facet of a celebrity's life". It was a very public display of emotion at a event that had enormous personal significance. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with wjematherplease leave a message.... It is clearly contrary to WP:NOTGOSSIP and also contrary to WP:NOTNEWS. Read the content linked to and you will see this to be the case. Ronnie O'Sullivan's notability is as a snooker player not as a professional hugger. Robynthehode (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Trivial indeed. Just because news sources (which have long been going downhill in their journalistic quality) mention it, it doesn't automatically make it a worth inclusion in Wikipedia articles. Seasider53 (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Independent has "long been going downhill in its journalistic quality"? But there are plenty of others. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've read all the "the content linked to", thanks, and I think there is a degree of interpretation to be made. I wasn't actually suggesting that O'Sullivan was a "professional hugger." You might equally (and equally erroneously) argue that Boris Becker's notability is as a tennis player not as a convicted fraudster or that Paul Gascoigne's notability is as a former professional footballer and not as an unstable alcoholic. Sportsmen are not all robots, they do have personalities (with some possible exceptions, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My comment about 'professional hugger' was tongue in cheek and I was not seriously suggesting you were suggesting O'Sullivan was one. But the point still stands - the content about the hug is trivia and is supported by the interpretation of at least WP:NOTGOSSIP and maybe WP:NOTNEWS by more than one editor as shown above. So is such content that important to you? There's far too much trivia creeping into Wikipedia. Robynthehode (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a loss to the article. I'm not responsible for "too much trivia creeping into Wikipedia", thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it really isn't. Additionally, giving the same weight to an insignificant (in the grand scheme of things) hug as is given to each record that he broke or equalled during the championship is WP:UNDUE. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It might be better placed in the "Personal life section", except that "Career summary" already contains many details about his mental health and emotional problems. His breaking of records and championship wins are rightly give much more prominence. If that one single sentence is judged too much, it might easily be trimmed down. Currently there is no content whatsoever on the personal significance of the win to O'Sullivan himself? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

- seems like a pretty trivial thing, but maybe needs a brief mention. Professional snooker career of Ronnie O'Sullivan is a better place regardless, as the career summary here is supposed to be short in summary style. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. A very good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea at all and contrary to consensus at the moment Robynthehode (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The relevant place to discuss is at Talk:Professional snooker career of Ronnie O'Sullivan, where a separate consensus can be sought. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just so other editors, who may not be watching the article, know, Martinevans is now trying to bypass the consensus on this page re the above content about the 'hug' by including it in the article Professional snooker career of Ronnie O'Sullivan. Robynthehode (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow. Maybe you'll want to haul me off to WP:AN/I for trying to "get my own way". A separate consensus exists for the content of each separate Wikipedia article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Both articles now off my watchlist, thanks Robynthehode. Good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say this is one of the most bizarre talk-page discussions I've been in but, sadly, he and I have several mutual articles on our watchlists. Seasider53 (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your sadness would be tempered if you sent him a list, so that he could also take all of those off his watchlist? But not quite sure what the issue might be with those. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How do you take article off a watchlist but keep the talk pages on it, as you seem to have done? Seasider53 (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is possible to view and edit any page, regardless of whether it's on one's watchlist? I've rarely experienced such hostility in many years. It reminds me of the good old days. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)