Talk:2024 World Open (snooker)

Seeds

@Catb2006: What is going on with the seed numbers? You seem to have changed many of them. For instance, Kyren Wilson now has (9) in the bracket and (8) in the qualifiers, and snooker.org has him at [8]. Explain. Alan (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alan, 9 is the seed Kyren Wilson was originally given, hence his position in the bracket. Mark Williams withdrew, meaning seed position 8 was taken by his replacement, Iulian Boiko. Usually a withdrawal before the tournament would be accounted for in the seedings, but this one was clearly too late for that, hence Boiko's appearance in a seeded berth. This withdrawal doesn't mean everyone else moves up one as was displayed before my edits, so I have reverted to the original seedings, which is the correct way, so 1 plays 32, 16 plays 17 etc in the last 32. Hope that helps. Catb2006 (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the main draw and the qualifying need to match up though. Either way we don't make these things up ourselves, we need sources. Nigej (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a source that says Williams withdrew and was replaced by Boiko, but Boiko's position in the draw does correspond to the 8th seed. When I first created the page with the draw copied from snooker.org [1] Boiko has already replaced Williams. And the seedings were moved up one after Williams, so Kyren Wilson is 8th, Ali Carter 9th, etc. I don't think we should change it so that the 8th seed is vacant, though. AmethystZhou (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've changed KW's number to (9) in the qualis now. All of these numbers now disagree with snooker.org which is our primary source for seedings. That can't be right. Alan (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Catb2006: I can't find a reliable source for the changes you made, so I think the numbers should go back to the way they were, with KW at (8) etc., since snooker.org (our only source) is still using these numbers. Please revert these changes. Alan (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the numbers back the way they were. Alan (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AmethystZhou: Banned user User:DooksFoley147 seems to think the seed numbers are wrong. Fed up with undoing his edits. Bit busy just now. Could you please take a look. Alan (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he was right. I've changed them. Alan (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I undid those edits the first time because they are different from snooker.org, but looks like snooker.org has updated theirs as well. AmethystZhou (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyren Wilson - Jimmy White match

Looks like the WST live score site has glitched out again. It was showing Wilson made three centuries of 114, 113, and 121 in the first three frames at some point, but now it's changed? The frame scores don't match the match stats in the other tab. Did anyone watch the match, can you confirm this? AmethystZhou (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just played it back. Frame 3 was 121-0 with 121 break. Nigej (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thank you! AmethystZhou (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AmethystZhou: You don't need to worry about errors in the century breaks. I check them every morning against snookerinfo.co.uk and cuetracker.net to make sure we're right. Look, I'm 77 and I get up really early (about 5am), and there's not much else to do at that time of the morning in the winter.

Alan (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, I'd like to alert everyone that the WST live score is still not to be fully trusted, though! AmethystZhou (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, "not to be fully trusted" is a bit of an understatement. It is a complete screw-up. They have prioritised presentation over content, all pretty pictures etc. without even getting the basics right. Like getting the players' names correct for instance, all of the Chinese players' names are displayed incorrectly. I'm fairly sure that the actual live data is fed directly from the scoreboard at the venue which is, in turn, fed from the referee's hand-held device. So it pretty much depends on which referee is officiating. Alan (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suretys maximum break

The maximum break of Surety currently is shown as a main stage century but it was a qualifying century – even if it was a held over match. Is there any special reason to show under main stage centuries? --Guternachbar (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's been much discussion on this topic over the years at WT:SNOOKER. We separated them in this way because that's what WST did before their recent website change. Personally I'm of the view that held-over matches are not qualifiers. Either way, other sites like [2] and cuetracker (called Qualifiers and Venue) split them in this way, although snooker.org still regards these matches as part of a qualifying round (not quite sure what they're qualifying for? the second round?). Similar issues relate to wildcard matches. Nigej (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like everyone in the qualifying they qualify for the last 64 – the second round if you want. If you don't see them as qualifiers, then why the others? They are playing on the same tournament level. --Guternachbar (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So why is someone winning their last-64 match not "qualifying" for the last-32? The reality is that qualifying gets you to the main event in China. Anyway it's not just my view, see this from the WST site: https://www.wst.tv/news/2024/january/25/world-open-updated-draw/ from 25 January: "The draw for the final stages of the World Open in Yushan, China, has been updated, following the completion of the qualifying round." So the qualifying round was completed in January. That what it says. Surety's maximum was in a held-over match in China in March. Nigej (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the odd thing to me is not why Surety's maximum is in the "main stage" section, but why the article has the held-over matches in a section called "Qualifying" when they're not. Nigej (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej: I think you're right. I note that you just changed the sub-section title from "Held-over qualifying matches" to "Held-over matches". Perhaps that whole sub-section should be moved down into the "Early rounds" section above the "Last 64" sub-section. Alan (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section could have a longer title like "qualifying and wild-card matches". The situation is not helped by WST using a term like pre-qualifier for the preliminary/wild-card match. Not really sure what's best. Nigej (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and I've just added locations to the "Century breaks" section which might help. Alan (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved that section, and adding the locations to the centuries section answers, I think, the original post question. Not happy about really long section headings though. Alan (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I much would prefer to have only the section Centuries without a split into Main stage and Qualifying stage. Another good solution would be Centuries played in Yushan/Barnsley because that also would avoid this irritating qualifying. --Guternachbar (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personaly I disagree. Snookerinfo does split it. Also by combining them we lose all the chronology. We've had a number of events in between and I think the split is useful. Nigej (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Individual preferences are not (IMO) really relevant. What is relevant, as pointed out by Nigej above, are the splits made by our sources. Alan (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]