Talk:2016–17 snooker world ranking points

Snooker Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Snooker, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of snooker on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SnookerWikipedia:WikiProject SnookerTemplate:WikiProject SnookerSnooker articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Need Some Help

I just can't seem to compile the ranking list, even with edited templates. Maybe someone with experience can help with it.--Ui56k (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will sort it out but it will have to be tomorrow since I will be out most of the day. Betty Logan (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the PTC column in the template cannot be left out. That is the reason in which the list goes astray. Unfortunately, now the Riga Masters column is being replaced by the PTC column.--Ui56k (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know for sure which points will be dropping at which cut-off point? It doesn't say on the calendar so I am wondering if this information has come from WPBSA or if it is conjectured? Betty Logan (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to the 2015/2016 templates and patched in your changes one by one. It came down to just three coding errors: i) in the second cut-off at Template:Snooker player points you had missed of the little vertical bar in front of the "ao" parameter; ii) in the table points at Template:Snooker season points/2016/2017 you had left in the colon (which acted as a table separator) and deleted the vertical bar after removing the PTC, and what you needed to do was delete the colon and keep the vertical bar; iii) for the 8th cut-off for the 2016/17 points you had missed a curly bracket off the Gibralter Open variable. Betty Logan (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On another note I made the variable names for the Scottish Open and Shoot-Out more explicit, since "so" could be interpreted as being for either. I appreciate quite a lot of the variables are ambiguous but this is a historical problem (we can't change them without causing damage to the older articles) but we should avoid it where we can. Secondly, I have left all the 2014/15 points on each cut-off for now since the calendar does not state which points are coming off when. I don't know if you found this information elsehwere or if you are just speculating, but we should avoid speculation since it can be misleading. It's another couple of weeks before the season starts so there is no need to jump the gun. Presumably World Snooker will at some point specify when the points are coming off as they have done in previous season and we can correct the template when they do. Betty Logan (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is a better idea than to do a revamp when the details are released.--Ui56k (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comfired that current points dropped after the cutoffs are incorrect. Will have to wait for a few more weeks for the correct one.--Ui56k (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the qualifiers of 2 (3?) ranking events are starting this week, but the cutoff calculations haven't been put out, shall we continue to update the tournamnet points, or is this being put on hold?--Ui56k (talk) 09:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can add the points, it just means the list won't be in the correct order until we know exactly what is coming off. Betty Logan (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solved! It looks like the cutoff templates are operating normally. As a side note, the cutoffs are officially updated to correspond the official records.--Ui56k (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ui56k: I may be missing something, but are you sure this is the proper number of the seeding cut-offs? On the official re-ranking list there are more of them mentioned. Vinitsky14 (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are re-ranking dates (which occur after every single tournament because it is a rolling ranking list). The players are only re-seeded periodically and the cut-off dates can be found here: http://web.archive.org/web/20160514092302/http://www.worldsnooker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Click-here-for-the-calendar.pdf. Ultimately it is the seeding dates that matter, because from a tournament perspective it doesn't really matter if you are ranked #16 but are seeded outside of the top 16, especially for events such as the Masters and World Championship which rely on a top 16 seed rather than a top 16 rank. As an example, you could be seeded #17 after the UK Championship and you won't get a place at the Masters, and then win the China Open and go up to #5, but you still won't be able to play at the Masters because of your low seeding. At other tournaments the effect of your seeding is less dramatic, but it may still decide if you play a 1-64 player in the first round or a 65-128 player and so on. Betty Logan (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To explain more clearly, see this: http://www.prosnookerblog.com/rankings/latest-projected-seedings-2/. Despite there are two re-ranking dates before the cutoff, they are purely for reference and has no significance in the seeding of tournaments. Only the rankings after the third re-ranking date (1st cutoff) is used for the seeding of further tournaments. Hence, only those important dates are shown in the cutoff list.--Ui56k (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15/16 final rankings vs. 16/17 start rankings

These two lists are not the same; the World Snooker's "start ranking relates to the ranking position at the start of the 2016/2017 Season prior to the first main tour ranking event" – see this. All players from #65 are with wrong start ranking. 213.151.215.195 (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The start ranks were taken from the end ranks for last year, which doesn't take into account those players outside of the top 64 that were relegated. If you want to go ahead and fix it then feel free to do so; if not, then thanks for bringing it to our attention and it will be dealt with in due course. Betty Logan (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the start rankings have been updated in reference to a new source, which is the rankings after the 1st event and does not comply with the actual start rankings (rankings after the 2016 wsc). As such, I may consider to revert the update back to the previous one unless an explanation is provided.--Ui56k (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to 213.151.215.195's source Word Snooker seems to have re-ranked the players at some point between relegating/promoting players from the tour and the first tournament of the season, the Riga Masters (the source itself specifically states "Start ranking relates to the ranking position at the start of the 2016/2017 Season prior to the first main tour ranking event, The 2016 Kaspersky Lab Riga Masters". If this were not the case why would World Snooker have a different "start" rank to the "current" rank after the first event?? We can't very well have a different "start" rank to World Snooker can we? Betty Logan (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have figured out what has happened. When World Snooker were on the points system they used to re-rank again at the start of the season after the relegation/promotion: 2013/14 points. When they moved over to the prize money list in 2014/15 they didn't bother re-ranking at the start of the season: after 2014 Australian Open, after 2014 UK. For the 2015/16 season they started off the same way by not re-ranking: 2015 Australian Open (July 2015). However, halfway through the 2015/16 season they went back to the old system of re-ranking at the start of the season and retrospectively added start ranks: 2015 Rurh Open (October 2015). They continued with this method of re-ranking at the start of this season: after 2016 Riga Masters (June 2016).

If you look through the previous articles up to 2013/14 they use the re-ranked start ranks, because that is what World Snooker use as the Start ranks. For 2014/2015 (when the rankings converted to prize money) the article uses the 2013/2014 end ranks because World Snooker did not issue fresh start ranks. The 2015/2016 season uses the 2014/2015 end ranks because World Snooker did not issue start ranks at the time; however they retrospectively added them in October 2015. The 2016/2017 article currently uses the new start ranks that World Snooker has issued.

At the moment the 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 articles are anomalous because they use the end ranks for the previous season rather than the new start ranks. World Snooker never issued new start ranks for 2015/2016, but they issued new start ranks about halfway through the 2015/2016 season as the sources show. Therefore the question is not whether we should revert this article (our articles should reflect what World Snooker says) but rather should we change the start ranks in the 2015/2016 article to match the start ranks added in October 2015? Betty Logan (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've figured out what you mean about the start rankings, i.e. the left row of the Riga Masters ranking list and about the new players who don't have a ranking. However, I can see some players whose start rankings differ from the source. For example, according to the source, Judd Trump's start ranking is at 5, but in the wiki it says 3 instead.--Ui56k (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After checking the start rankings, it seems only three players have incorrect start rankings, which will be corrected in no time.--Ui56k (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links to previous cutoffs

I am aware that the links to previous cutoffs are being removed. Is that a policy change or is this a case of misunderstanding? To clarify for a bit, the links mentioned refer to the wiki pages of previous cutoffs--Ui56k (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy I am aware of that mandates their removal. There was an editor who removed them a few weeks ago on the older articles because he misunderstood that they were links to a "time freeze" version of the article. It's a long-standing feature of this family of articles and editors who wish to remove them should arguably obtain a consensus to do so. Betty Logan (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong formula for the calculation of two columns

I'm noticing that the points in the "16/17" column are not calculated correctly. If I knew how the formula used for the calculation should be changed, I would have changed it by myself until now. Namely, it does not include the points earned from the Scottish Open. To illustrate the matter - for example, Higgins and Fu have earned 30 000 and 70 000 from the Scottish Open respectively. These points are not included in the "16/17" section. Therefore, the formula in the "16/17" column should be edited in such a way, so that it includes all the columns up to and including the German Masters (for now).— Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearMissile (talk • contribs) 16:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. The code for the Scottish Open had been changed (from so to sco) but not in the template so it was being left out. It is now fixed. The table is still showing the wrong totals but I have tested the template manually to make sure it works, so it just needs to work through the system. Betty Logan (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]