Talk:Steve Davis/Archive 2

Images
I do think the article could do with some images to spruce it up a little. Although Commons has a few other images at commons:Category:Steve_Davis,_snooker_player, there are two excellent photographs at Flickr that are licensed CC-BY 2.0 by a user named Jeppe2. They look legit (and pass the TinEye.com test). They also include camera info and plenty of details on what was happening when the image was taken. Here they are:,. (A third, bizzare one: .) I would upload both to Commons and throw them into this article. If you're busy working on the article, let me know and I'll be happy to do the uploading for you. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 08:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I added one of the Flickr images to the article. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 10:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thnaks. Armbrust  Talk to me  Contribs  21:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What is it with this place?
I try to improve the article with new information and all I get are pedants and blowhards like 'Armbrust' telling me my edits are 'vandalism' or 'poor quality'. That's when they even bother to give an explanation. Maybe 'Armbrust' can tell us all what is poor quality and vandalous about this : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Davis&action=historysubmit&diff=427753137&oldid=427751615 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.15.132 (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC) The only reason I'm here involving myself is because of the way the anonymous editor has been treated. Often their edits have been reverted with little or no explanation as to why. Where explanations have been given, they often don't tie up. The editor was even reported for a ban for vandalism at WP:AIV, which is a completely inappropriate way to respond. I'd love for this article to do well in its review (especially as I happen to be a big fan of Steve Davis), but this article's GA review is not more important than the way we treat other (especially new) editors. Mato (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Armbrust is currently guiding this article through its GA review so no-one should really be making big changes to it beyond what the GA reviewer suggests. Once it passes or fails you can do what you want to it subject to consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I don't think the user was making any huge changes here. Secondly, if you're saying "no-one should really be making big changes to it beyond what the GA reviewer suggests", it might be a good idea to quote (or link to) the relevant policy, so that the editor knows that's not just your opinion. Mato (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To elaborate further, many of this user's edits have substantially improved the prose in the article (in my opinion). It might be a good idea to get someone like this on board at WP:Snooker, rather than deterring them by reverting their edits as vandalism. Mato (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There isn't a policy governing editing during a GA review as I am sure you well know (do we really have to reduce a collaborative effort to policy points all the time on Wikipedia?), but one of the requirements is that the article is stable. Generally it's considered bad form to edit an article under review beyond the changes asked for, because it means the reviewer has to re-review the alterations, and the lack of a stability can cause a fail meaning that both the reviewer and the nominator have wasted their time. It's just a matter of being considerate to these two editors, a review only lasts a week or two so editing beyond the requirements of the review can surely wait until then? Editors are welcome to improve prose (i.e. improve the standard of writing, but don't change the inheretnt meaning of the prose) and references and make other MOS improvements, but the editor did alter some of the information content, which means we have to ensure it is correctly sourced and neutral i.e. it changes the goal posts of the review. The editor could work on the other player articles in the interim (the snooker articles need more editors so he's more than welcome), or if he's interested in this particular article then waiting a week isn't much to ask for, but Armbrust has worked on putting this through its review so please don't derail it for him. Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. I do of course understand what you've said. I also agree with the points you've made and respect the effort that has gone into this article.

Flags
Can someone check that the use of flags without country names (per the various tables) is congruent with WP:MOSFLAG please? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Flags should probably be removed from the infobox as per "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes" at WP:FLAGBIO. We permit the use of flags in result and draw sheets as per WP:SNOOKER/NF. Betty Logan (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the manual of style allow flags (without country names)? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:FLAGBIO is only applicable for birth, residence or death, but to indicate which nation the player represent within their sport (in this case snooker) doesn't fall under it. The use of flags in tables without country names is consistent with Wikipedia practice. They are used on every tennis player biography articles too, where the player has won/reached a final of a tournament. Armbrust  Talk to me  Contribs  09:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not "consistent with Wikipedia practice" unless you mean a bad practice or a habit that fails to meet the manual of style. WP:MOSFLAG says that flags should not be used without the country name. It says:
 * "Accompany flags with country names The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as not all readers are familiar with all flags"


 * I think you need a "nationality" column here. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And I think if this is really a bad practice, than it should be addressed somewhere else, because it concerns hundreds if not thousands of articles and not just this one. Armbrust  Talk to me  Contribs  10:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. But just because other stuff exists, it doesn't make it right.  And I thought this was being submitted for good article review?  Best to fix these things and have a brilliant GA rather than one with MOS flaws throughout. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't need a nationality column, that is the purpose of the flags. The MOS says it is acceptable to use flags without country names in tables or lists. List of WPA World Nine-ball champions is given as an example of correct usage, and I would say that the table on this article conforms to the same standard. Betty Logan (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So you don't care about people who don't recognise the flags or those with accessibility concerns? The tables need serious work in any case, adding a nationality column would be trivial.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think adding a nationality column would risk atering the context of the information: it would make it look like the player was playing for his country rather than just a representative of it. Maybe a legend box for the flags would be an acceptable middle ground? After all, the MOS says it isn't necessary to associate every instance of the flag with its country. Betty Logan (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Betty Logan's idea is an acceptable alternative. If The Rambling Man accepts, then I will add it to the section. Armbrust  Talk to me  Contribs  11:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, fine by me, a legend box has been used several times where the country may "get in the way" (as it were). I think that would be acceptable, and particularly as there aren't too many countries to note here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Added legend to the section. Armbrust  Talk to me  Contribs  12:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice. I'm in the process of making the tables accessible.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Table sorting
Looks like some work will need to be done on the sortablility of the tables. We now use sortname to sort correctly by surname, and the score columns seem to need some work, right now they sort completely incorrectly. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Corrected sorting of tables. Armbrust  Talk to me  Contribs  10:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work. Now we just need to try to make them accessible and I'd also like an explanation of what the No. column means somewhere as it's not immediately obvious at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Blank cells
In the "Career finals" section, there are a few blank cells. This is confusing, these should be addressed with referenced notes. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Added referenced notes to these cells. Armbrust  Talk to me  Contribs  12:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-ranking finals
The book came through from the library today so I've been able to replace some of the references. Some of the results where in the wrong order so I've correct those (presuming the book has them in the right order). Unfortunately it only records results from matches of at least 9 frames, so I wasn't able to replace them all.

Another problem that has arisen is that the book calls the "Matchroom Professional Championship" the "Matchroom Trophy". The problem here is that the 1985 International Open was also called the Matchroom Trophy (which the book also calls the Matchroom Trophy!) but they were different events since the International Open went back to being called the International Open, after being called the Goya Matchroom Trophy in 1985. Either there were two events called the Matchroom Trophy (unlikely but not impossible) or the book has confused the two names (more likely). We need to verify exactly what the 1986–1988 event was called (either the Matchroom Professional Championship or the Matchroom Trophy), preferably with a reliable source. Betty Logan (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Clive Everton's The Embassy Book of World Snooker, there were indeed two events with the same name. It is listed as simply the Matchroom Trophy for 1986 and 1987 (distinct from the 1985 Goya Matchroom Trophy, which as you say was the International), and the LEP Matchroom Championship for 1988. Clarity obviously wasn't a priority when they named these tournaments. SteveO (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

PTC events
Why has the PTC event details been deleted and a commented added that they do no require so much detail? To a player like Davis at this stage in his career these events are very telling of his future thoughts regarding his particioation in the game. If he doesn't enter them or enters and performs badly, because of the significant changes in the way the rankings are made, it is not beyond reasonable doubt that Davis could retire at the end of this season. A first round defeat to James Wattana, may only be seen as being a push more towards that notion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.32.67 (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's supposed to be a biographical article not a scorecard. The entire PTC tour ideally shouldn't receive any more coverage than a typical tournament, otherwise it will monopolise the season summaries.  If he gets some good results then by all means add them, but a first round defeat in a single PTC event simply isn't notable in the career of someone like Davis.  If he drops off the tour then that is notable, and the factors that caused it can be added to the article from that perspective.  On another note Wikipedia articles shouldn't be used as sources anyway, if you want to add results use the BBC or the World Snooker site or something. Betty Logan (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In part I agree with your points, however given that this starts Davis' season, the information is important in the context of the start of the season. For each event is telling of what his future in snooker is likely to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.32.67 (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think given the stage of career that Davis is in that it is vitally important to show that he has started the season and what events he entered? to delete them and leave only the 2010/11 season as the last entry when the new one has started is irrational and wrong. 94.7.32.67 (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you're wrong. As Betty Logan said this is biographical article, and have to be balanced. There shouldn't be undue weight to the PTC event, even so if Davis lost in the first round and violates the Wikipedia is not a newspaper policy. And to your point about "is telling of what his future in snooker is likely to be", this is pure speculation, which is against the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy. Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  11:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Retirement
What's speculative about providing a list of times Davis has defended possible retirement, it's quite a real subject adn nothing speculative at all about it, he himself has defended his positon whilst others, notably Dennis Taylor amongst many have questioned his continued playing. For a player like Davis it is ludicrous to think that this is not an issue 157.203.254.1 (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair point. Relocated relevant info and remove speculation, info about PTC (over-detailed) and Australian Goldfields Open (only ranking tournaments are relevant, where Davis competes.) Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  18:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW a "retirement" section should only made if Davis actually retires, and not because of speculation by journalists and other players about it. Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  18:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, any speculation about retirement is just that: speculation.  Therefore we should just stick to what Davis himself says on the matter.  Betty Logan (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disgree with the point that PTC's are not important to Davis, As Davis, withdrew from the Australian Open, it would create a faulse impression of his view on this season, as he did enter PTC1, thus he is still playing and does intend to contiue. It is completely wrong to delete the writting about the PTC1 entry and Australian Open, for as the season has already started, it creates an impression that Davis is not playing proffessional snooker, in the contect of a whole season, yes each individual PTC event etc are of little note, but given it's the start of the season and Davis' age and stage of his career, it is vitally important to shw that he has started it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you have the right to disagree. But the PTC has (1) too many events to list them all and (2) are a minor-ranking series. If you see other articles, they only contain the best results in the PTC events, thus a first round defeat isn't relevant. And tournaments where Davis didn't play are equally irrelevant. Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  18:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and the article can't created any impressions about Davis' view about the current season. So it's speculation to say anything about it. Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  18:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you understood what I wrote? I said, "In the context of a whole season, yes each individual PTC event etc are of little note, but given it's the start of the season and Davis' age and stage of his career, it is vitally important to show that he has started it". Thus to say that a first round loss in a PTC event and withdrawing from the first ranker of season are irrelevant is absurd. It leaves the 2011/12 season unstarted which as I've said before, in the context of Davis' age and the stage of his career is not what an Encyclopaedic reference should be doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not relevant and you reasoning doesn't change it. The 2011/12 started, even there is nothing relevant for this article. What's next, writing that Davis didn't participated at the Wuxi Classic and the World Cup? Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  18:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If one searches Steve davis retirement on the net, there are many refference from Dennis Taylor to expecting davis o retire in the summer, when one goes to the wikipedia page there is nothing for him starting the 2011/12 season, a very poor state of affairs.
 * Well it's your opinion, but Wikipedia is neither the news not the place for the place for speculation. Taylor speculated, that Davis will announce his retirement, but he didn't. Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  19:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it not the place to recode in Encyclopaedic detail Davis' participation in the spoort of Snooker? if so why does it mention nothing regarding season? Has he retired? I'll be putting that Davis entered PTC1 and withdrew from the Australian Open, and I expect it to stay in place until more creditable and significant happenings in the 2011/12 appear, until then these are the most note worthy points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And I have removed them, because they are not needed. Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  21:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You are not the last word on what is or is not required, writing that Davis has started the season, is valid, if that means writing he entered PTC1 and withdrew from the qualifier for the Australian Open, then so be it, the latter point is notable in it's own right as Davis withdrawing from events, is not something he did in his hey day. The page should be current, and the entry to the PTC's may be deleted AFTER more significant events have occured, but until then, they serve to illustrate that he has started the season - a valid point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.210.38 (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need to add irrelevant information just because more relevant information isn't available currently per WP:NODEADLINE. Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  10:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets get this in perspective, the page has random match scores from specific matches, what real relevance has giving a match scrore from seasons agot in comparison to the very vaslid point that Davis has started the 2011/12 season. The points I;ve written have no more or less detaikl of weight than all of the detail given for the last season and season before that, why do you feel that starting the 2011/12 season is not required? If the first event was the Shanghai and he's lost in that, then it would be the same as the entry for the last season, the fact of the matter is that, the first event this season, is the Australian Goldfields open, and instead of losing, he withdrew, why is that no worthy of deletion, whilst a match score and opponent in his shanghai match, amongst others remains. You have no real resaon for deleting Davis' start to the 2011/12 sesaon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.210.38 (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has now info about Davis started the season, but specific info about a PTC first round loss and a withdrawal isn't needed. Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  11:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you sugest a first round withdrawal is not needed whilst prvious paragraphs go into match score detail and opponent's names? in the similar events? If his withdrawal from the Australian Open is not needed why do we need to know that "he lost 1–3 against Peter Ebdon in the last 64 of the World Open"? Fact that Daivs is now willing to withdraw from events, is far more important to him than whether he lsot in the last 64 of an event, to whom and by how much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is it important to Steve davis's page that detail such as: "Willie Thorne, who missed a blue off the spot which would have given him a 14–8" on his page, Thorne missing a blue of it's spot is on there, and you delete a point about davis now being at a stage in his career where he withdraws from events? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A first round withdrawal is the same as not participating at a tournament, and thus no need to mention it. But it look from this section, that you wont care what I said, so the why the discussion? Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A first round withdrawal is not the same as not participating. It could be said that Davis didn;t participate in the Wuxi Classic, he was however enetered into the Australian Goldfields Open, but withdrew and for any snooker player that is as important as a loss, for he receives no ranking points for that event, you could probably count on one hand the number of times Davis has withdrawn from an event in the last 30 years. I care what you say, for I'm trying to discuss points rather than deleting other peoples edits, which are in line with others already on the article, you have ignored by questions on why, such lines as whille thorne missing a blue off a spot and last 64 match scores and opponents names as in the article and yet you seemed to think Davis receiving no ranking points in his first two events of a season were not important and deleted them, you are not the last word of what and is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You just said it, because he withdrew from the tournament he will receive no ranking points, thus the same as not participating. There is also no information on the Ronnie O'Sullivan article about his first round withdrawal from the 2010 Shanghai Masters and from other PTC, they are not relevant enough. And saying this withdrawal means anything to Davis' snooker career is pure speculation, which is against policy. Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  16:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

How I Play Snooker
The additions of the "How I Play Snooker" is not relevant and the addition of the "and took him through Joe Davis' instructional book How I Play Snooker "page by page, drill by drill"." text doesn't even make sense. Who "took him through"? Previous edits by IPs like are even original research. Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Let's talk <sub style="color:#008000;">about my edits? 17:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not original research. Its the book Steve Davis learned the game from. THe article shows his dad taught him using Joe Davis' `bible` and this is well known in snooker anyway. Even Davis himself said so in his 1980s autobiography. Davis still uses it as a coaching manual today.
 * You also need to stop acting like you own this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.153.1 (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well lets see: The first isn't reliable. The second only says, that Davis' father introduced snooker to him and gave him this book. The third says Steve Davis and his father studied this book and was a basis for Steve Davis's own technique in 1970's. The fourth has nothing do with this information. What do you think from the following wording:

"Davis was introduced to snooker by his father Bill, a keen player, who took him to play at his local working men's club at the age of 12, and gave him Joe Davis' instructional book How I Play Snooker. They studied the book and build Davis' own technique on it in the 1970's."
 * And I don't own the article, but the source given originally don't support the facts which were claimed. Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Let's talk <sub style="color:#008000;">about my edits? 07:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * yes that wording is fine by me. i dont know why the same information could not have been based on the Independent interview which states 'His father Bill first noticed as much at Plumstead Working Men's Club in south-east London where his son never questioned or complained as he was taken through, page by page, drill by drill, How I Play Snooker by Joe Davis; no relation, save in spirit.'  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.147.235 (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added the new wording to the article, as the IP agrees it. Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Let's talk <sub style="color:#008000;">about my edits? 15:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

one of four people to of compiled 300 centuries
5 Peter Ebdon became the fifth last season reference Peter Ebdons page QueenAlexandria 20:14 23/07/12 utc —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII  <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  06:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nicknames
I have followed Davis's career for many years and never heard him referred to as Steve 'Stumble' Davis or the 'Romford Robot'. Can anyone name a source for these?