Jump to content

Talk:2020 World Snooker Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured article2020 World Snooker Championship is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Good topic star2020 World Snooker Championship is part of the 2019–20 snooker season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 3, 2021.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 1, 2020Good article nomineeListed
October 23, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
October 13, 2022Good topic candidatePromoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 16, 2020.
Current status: Featured article

Qualifying Draw

[edit]

I have filled in the seeds for the first four matches, but I am not sure whether to use "nowrap"? It seems it is not the best way to do it because of different showings on different screens? Should there be some changes to the template? Best wishes, Mrloop (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mrloop - thanks for putting the effort in here, and discussing this one. WP:NOWRAP is only for things that should always appear on one line (examples are on the link, but things like weight conversions). Names don't meet this, unless hyphenated, so you should: use
  • [[Thepchaiya Un-Nooh|Thepchaiya {{nowrap|Un-Nooh}}]]

and not

  • {{nowrap|[[John Higgins]]}}

for example. If it does look silly we can play around with the margins in the template to fix the majority of issues. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Country codes

[edit]

What source are we using for the three-letter country codes in this article, and snooker articles in general? They seem to follow FIFA codes, which doesn't really make a lot of sense. The official World Snooker website tends to use ISO codes for non-UK nations, many of which are the same as the ones we're using, but with a few notable differences (for example, DEU for Germany, CHE for Switzerland, MYS for Malaysia), and they also seem to use SCT for Scotland, rather than SCO. Is there a reason why we're not using the codes used by World Snooker? Most other sports articles on Wikipedia display the country codes that are used by their governing bodies. Edin75 (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We simply use the ones pre-built into category:All country data templates. Quite happy to change them around if the nation in particular isn't suitable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was just curious, to be honest. Most sports' governing bodies use IOC codes these days, football obviously uses FIFA codes, and Wikipedia articles tend to use the relevant codes for each sport. World Snooker is unusual with its use of ISO codes, but I'm not really a fan of the likes of SCT, DEU and CHE anyway, so I'm happy to leave it as it is! I just wanted to know if there was a specific source that we're using. Edin75 (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of flags

[edit]

All those flags in the Qualifying section.. I don't know, it just looks idiotic. Shouldn't flags be restricted to draw sheets and maybe ('vertical') lists of players? Mrloop (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be using images at all within prose - let alone flags. MOS:FLAG is the relevant guideline. Needs removing Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

O'Sullivan's appearance record

[edit]

I added information about Ronnie O'Sullivan's record breaking 28th consecutive Crucible appearance. This was reverted as "hardly lede worthy". Please could those with more knowledge of snooker articles than me assist with adding it to the correct place in the article. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I was going to add this to the body, most likely in the first round section. The issue of chucking this in the lede is that whilst true, it's not particularly notable. It's quite likely this will also be true next year, so would be a bit irrelevant for this tournament. It's also only talking about the event since the 1970s, and the event itself has been held since 1927. The WP:LEDE should be a summary of the rest of the article, covering the most notable parts, and should be readable on its own. A reasonably random statistic about O'Sullivan in a summary of the event (the location, dates, money, event winner, etc) seems out of place. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your help. --Jameboy (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2020 World Snooker Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 09:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Comments

  • Copyvio and plagiarism check: Used Earwig's Copyvio Detector. WST 32.4% match is mostly direct attributed quotes, but also the phrase "set a new record for the most combined points in a single frame at the Crucible." I suggest considering whether there is another reasonable way to include that information.
Yahoo 37.5% match is a direct attributed quote and a very common phrasing. WST 20% match is a direct attributed quote and common phrasings. 18.7% match seems to be a mirror site; 17.4% match is names and common phrasing, 16.7% match is a directly attributed quote and common phrasing; 16% match is a directly attributed quote and common phrasing; 15.3% match is a directly attributed quote and common phrasing. Reviewed the other matches of 9.9% and above, and no concerns from those.
Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my comments. I've made a few minor copyedits where I thought they would be uncontroversial. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Lee Vilenski - My comments are below, nothing major. I'll look at the lead after reviewing your responses. Thanks. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the change to get rid of the copyvio. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • Looks fine.

Lead

Background

  • Why not use a more recent source for "Stephen Hendry is the event's most successful participant in the modern era"? (It's still true, but I think a link that includes champions after 2012 would be better.)
  • Add source for "The previous year's championship was won by England's Judd Trump, who defeated Scotland's John Higgins in the final 18–9"
  • (I wasn't sure about the phrase "several frames" here but I see it's used in the FA-rated articles for 2017, 2018 and 2019 so it's OK here too.)

Format

Coverage

Prize fund

  • Looks fine.

Qualifying

First round

Second round

Quarter-finals

Semi-finals

Final

Main draw

Qualifying

  • Looks fine

Qualifying draw

  • Looks fine

Century breaks

External links

Other

Rewording of Statement

[edit]

Please reword the following statement

"Selby cleared until the final red, and a series of safety shots were played, with O'Sullivan playing controlled shots that he had previously not, and potted match ball after Selby failed to escape a snooker.[134]"

Mark Selby did not fail to escape from the snooker. He swerved round the black; hit the red; caught the far knuckle of the middle jaw and failed to leave the red safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.168.75 (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to the lede

[edit]

Hi, recently the lede has been changed quite a bit specifically the order of the highest break, which we usually have as the last item, with (somewhat randomly) the winning/final of the event. See this response when asking the user to bold, revert, discuss, so I'll start a discussion here in its stead.

In my eyes, the winner of the event is significantly more notable than that of the highest break, so should precede it in the lede. Any thoughts appreciated Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The lead should have the most important information first. Completely wrong to retain a chronological order with the winner listed last. Nigej (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, too. The lede doesn't have to be purely chronological, as I presume the other editor(s) are aiming for. The importance of the summarized information is what counts. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those of us who have done a lot of work on the World Championship articles have established a consistent structure for the lead, where the last paragraph covers (1) what happened to the defending champion, (2) the winner of the event and who he beat in the final, and (3) highest break info. Presenting the information consistently in the lead is more important than presenting it chronologically which is just likely to confuse the reader. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of interest, the Lead paragraph wiki article mentions "grabbing the attention of the reader", "the most important, interesting or attention-grabbing elements", "emphasize the interesting points of the article"; nowhere does it say anything about presenting the information 'chronologically'. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying stage centuries

[edit]

Please check the numbers and the source in 2020 World Snooker Championship#Qualifying stage centuries. I count 53 centuries in the list (it says 51 in the text) and the source is no good (neither is the archive). I thought I'd mention it now rather than saving it for the FA review. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does the World Snooker Tour website seriously not have a results archive?-- P-K3 (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is the official centuries list. It appears though, that the total is wrong. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As Rodney says, we will need a different source, the archive link is not working. P-K3 (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This archive is complete, it says 51 so there must be something wrong in our list. I'll check it through. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's Thepchaiya Un-Nooh, will remedy!! Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_World_Snooker_Championship&oldid=1196868148"