Talk:2021 Northern Ireland Open

Split results?

Wouldn't it be better to split the results into two sections of 32, rather than one covering all 64. After all we have the final which combines the two semi-final winners. The current style is, I suspect, struggling to fit neatly onto people laptops, presumably why people add the nowrap stuff. Of course the nowrap doesn't really help since the "Final" round tends to get more and more squashed. Nigej (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Nowrap actually causes all sorts of issues on mobile, if you weren't aware. It also isn't how nowrap is supposed to be used. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Sadly, the usual suspect is solely focused on himself and doesn't seem to care about anyone else. Nigej (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I was unaware that the format would not work properly on mobile. I simply copied the format of the China Open which uses the same system as this tournament. I would recommend that if we are splitting the draw into two halves here, it should be simultaneously done on the China Open tournament as well. As for nowrap, i never added those and i find it weird when random people do add these templates because there’s no consistency about the use of these things, i feel that nowrap shouldn’t be used personally.

@Lee Vilenski: and @Nigej:: just adding this ping as i don’t know whether you guys get talkpage notifications. —-CitroenLover (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I know there are loads of earlier events (and indeed some future ones too) with the 64-player draw all in one section. Some like 2019 China Open (snooker) use the "#invoke:RoundN|main|columns=6" (and are easy to convert) but earlier ones use the old 64TeamBracket template (which is much more effort to change). I found 116 snooker articles using 64TeamBracket, 2018 China Open (snooker) seems to be the last time. Seems we've been using #invoke:RoundN since the start of the 2018–19 snooker season. Anyway I'm really just putting it forward a suggestion for the future, although it'd pretty easy to convert articles back to 2018-19. Personally I prefer it. Nigej (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind the format used, as long as there is consistency about the template used. Digging into the template code, the {{64TeamBracket}} template invokes a Lua module called Module:Team bracket, so we should probably be using the #invoke parserfunction directly on the Module, without the intermediary template, although the intermediary template would make things far simpler. I do think the "final" should be reported on the draw template though, while keeping the section called "Final" for a more deeper analysis of the final itself. --CitroenLover (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a note, it's the nowrap that causes havok with mobile view and screen readers. People put it on items for benign reasons, on their favourite players, or just long names. Non-breaking spaces (which includes nowrap) is used for when a field of text needs to be on one line, or it might lose some meaning, such as "World War 2", or a date range. It's not used for names, except those that have a hyphen in them (such as Thepchiaya Un-Nooh, which should have the last name in nowrap.) "Ronnie O'Sullivan" or "Alexander Ursenbacher" (which are the two I see most often in the template) should not have this. I'd ask everyone to remove on sight if possible. Hit up my talk if you need better explaination, or more examples. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Highest Break

The highest break should be Mark Allen's 147. WST said he will receive the £5,000 highest break prize.[1]--219.79.71.28 (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. https://wst.tv/pistol-fires-147-in-belfast/ says "Allen’s 147 will earn him the £5,000 high break prize if it is not equalled. It’s the 170th maximum in snooker history and sixth of the season." Nigej (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Should this apply to other tournaments? Xiao Guodong made a 147 in a qualifying match of the 2021 Scottish Open. WST said he could get the high break prize.[2] Similar things also happened to Shaun Murphy in last season's German Masters.[3]--219.79.71.28 (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd have thought so. I'm assuming that the winner of the high break prize should be the person we note with the "highest break" in the infobox. Nigej (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The 147 "high break" prize is only paid as a consolation for there not being a maximum prize. It makes little sense listing 147s scored in qualifying as tournament highest breaks, but not - say - 146s and 145s. Mrloop (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

What is the evidence that it was a consolation? Did Higgins get the prize too or nothing? We should be listing 146s etc if they got the high break prize. That is the purpose of this parameter, otherwise we should remove the parameter. Nigej (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

See discussion at WT:SNOOKER#Held over matches. Nigej (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This is not about 147s. A few years ago they did away with having separate prizes for the high breaks in qualifying and the TV stages. If a 145 is made in the qualifying rounds, and only say a 142 in the TV stages, the 145 gets the high break prize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8085:7160:3B80:BCBA:3B28:418D:566C (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice to see some evidence for all this. Surely the whole point of this parameter is that it corresponds to the high break prize we generally note in the prize money section. If we're not doing that, but instead we're just making up our own rules about what counts as the highest break, then the justification for having the parameter goes out the window, and it needs to be removed from the infobox. Nigej (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)