Talk:2011–12 snooker world ranking points

Provisional rankings

Resolved

why does this page have Stephen Hendry at 19? When the source page quoted for this has him t number 16? Hendry to my knowledge has not dropped out of the top 16! --157.203.254.1 (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are still on the 2010/2011 rankings because the 2011/2012 update hasn't taken place yet, so these are the official rankings: Snooker world rankings 2011/2012. This page is the provisional rankings and will come into effect in October when they are updated for the first time. The points for the Australian Open and Shanghai Masters still need to be added so Stephen Hendry may well keep his top 16 place, if he plays well in them. Betty Logan (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if these are correct wil hendry have to play qualifiers for the australian and Shanghai events? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.70.7 (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the real ranking page is here: Snooker world rankings 2011/2012, and this is what the tournaments use. This page just counts what points are being dropped and the points being added and shows how many points the players have towards the next ranking update. The reason this page looks different is because it has dropped the Shanghai and Grand Prix point from two years ago, but the Shanghai and Australian points from this year haven't been added yet. Betty Logan (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right I get you now, so if hendry doesn't win at least his first round matches he will probably be in a simlar position to now, (out of the top 16)90.207.70.7 (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Prix points

Resolved

There seems to be some confusion over when the Grand Prix points are cut off. It seems the 2011 World Open is seeded from the 2010/11 rankings like Aus and Shanghai, but the qualifiers are played before the first cut-off while the tournament itself is played after the cut-off. Pro Snooker Blog seems to think this means that the Grand Prix points will be cut off along with Shanghai. However, I don't agree with the logic. The qualifier points won't be added before the cut-off since the points are always added at the end of the tournament, so the new World Open points will be added between the first cut-off and second cut-off. This means there is no reason to dump the Grand Prix points at the first cut-off since during the last season the new tournament points replaced the old tournament points after the tournament. If the same procedure is followed that means the old Grand Prix points will come off when the new World Open points are added, between cut-off 1 and cut-off 2. Until we know for sure, I think it's best to keep the Grand Prix points for the first cut-off; if World Snooker drop them then the points can be removed by just removing the parameter from the base template. Betty Logan (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On this page they say that "PLEASE NOTE that the points from the 2009 Grand Prix have not been taken off the list below. They will be taken off before the cut-off point on October 3" /193.44.1.82 (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know. I will adjust the calculation template to remove it. Betty Logan (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PTC1 points

Resolved

When will these be added to this rankings list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Snooker haven't released the update rankings yet: [1]. Last season they usually only updated the rankings after the main television events and after cut-off points. Betty Logan (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But last year these rankings were benig updated even part wa through a tournamount? sure the PTC1 points are the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.2 (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes editors will update them during the tournament if they know what the tariffs are, but World Snooker hasn't released the ranking point schedule for this season yet. They might be the same as last season, but then again they might not be. We don't even know the starter points for the new players yet. Betty Logan (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The points for the first PTC event seemt o be added on, but the total points and their order is differnt to the rankings, i.e. hendry has less points than Bingha on this list and yet is above Binghm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has added in the PTC points but hasn't sorted the list yet. It has to be manually sorted so it takes a bit of time. If you want to see the new order, you can click the little arrow under c/off 1 and it will give you the correct order. Betty Logan (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PTC tournament order

Stale

Presently we have the PTC in the first tournament column, but I was thinking maybe we should have it placed in the order in which the finals occur i.e. between the Welsh and China. All the other tournaments are ordered by when they finish as opposed to when they start. That way the yellow shading will drop off the Welsh, then the PTC, then China and so on. Betty Logan (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updating points

Resolved

How do I get the box to be white to show that a player is no longer in the event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Below the point parameters, there are the "background highlighting" parameters. Each tournament code has an analogous background code such as "smbg" for "sm", "ukbg" for "uk" and "ptc1bg" for "ptc1" and so on. Since white is the default colour, you only have to delete the corresponding code once the player is knocked out. This before and after shot will make it clear: [2]. Also, while everyone is welcome to update the points (the more people who update it, the more up to date it stays), please do it round by round; that way it makes it easier for someone else to pick up where you leave off, so they don't have to go through all the rounds. Betty Logan (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zero vs Grey: Not entered

Resolved

Is there meant to be a difference in meaning between the grey boxes and the boxes with zero in. For example, neither Ronnie nor Marco Fu attended the Australian open, yet Marco has a grey box and Ronnie has a zero. Does this mean something different or is this just accidental inconsistency?31.221.13.140 (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It means exactly what it says. Grey cells are where the player didn't enter so didn't receive any points, and cells containing 0 points are where the player was actually awarded 0 points. There may be several reasons why a player is awarded 0 points e.g. he withdrew from the event, was stripped of his points for a disciplinary offence etc, but in such cases the WSA actually awarded the player 0 points. It doesn't make any difference to the chart really, we only do it because the WSA rankings do it, and we want to make it as correct as possible. Betty Logan (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Groups of 16

Stale

Given the importance of the top 16 ranking placement and then of course the top 32 and 48 etc etc, could not the chart reflect this by having a coloured line or somthing to differentiate the groupings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.3 (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that but I don't even know if that is possible. I suspect we'd have to program the table in html rather than using a wikitable, and I don't know how to do that. Betty Logan (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change relative to?

What is the change column relative to? Start of the season or previous cutoff or something else?

Start of the season. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unseeded player received 320 points

Is it correct, Daniel Wells received 320 points at the 2011 UK Championship? He won his qualifying match, therefore he should receive 640 points as a round 1 unseeded loser. Unseeded losers always receive double points, aren't they? In other words, who can theoretically receive 640 points in the first round? 195.91.108.10 (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one could receive 640 points as the pre-qualifying round winners didn't get any additional points. So the 320 points for Wells are correct. It says "Players competing in the Pre Qualifier will be awarded the respective Round 1 (Last 96) losers points for losing in either the Last 96 round or the Pre Qualifying round. No additional points will be awarded for winning the Pre qualifying round." (worldsnooker.com) --BlueFire10 ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But nevertheless, in "THE TOUR RANKING POINTS SCHEDULE" of every season is always written at the first round (for example, current season) seeded loser 200 points, unseeded 400 points. Or in the Shanghai Masters - seeded loser 280, unseeded 560. World Ch. - seeded loser 400, unseeded 800, etc. What does it mean? 195.91.110.140 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, maybe you should as World Snooker about this. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Seeded points" are a misnomer. Basically all they mean is that if you lose your first match you only get half the points for that round. In the case of Wells there seems to be an anomaly: a strict interpretation of the ranking schedule implies that he should have received 640 points becasue he won his first match, but for whatever reason this was not the case. Personally I think it is unfair—if you won a match to get there you were entitled to your full point quota but there is no mistake at our end as you can see at here. Betty Logan (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Some of my source replacement may appear confusing, but I've had to replace our current sources with older ones. The later ones are from after the tour was restructured at the start of the 2012/2013 season meaning the players that dropped off the tour had their points cancelled and the order was changed; in short the new sources contradicted our table as opposed to verifying it.

For example:

This source issued after the 2012 Wuxi was being using to source all the tournament points, all those players who didn't survive 2012 tour relegation (below 64) had their points wiped in accordance with the new system of only tour players on the tour having points.

The 2012/2013 start rankings were being used to sourced the 2011/2012 total; the problem though is that it seems some of the players resigned their membership since players like Liu Song and Ian McCulloch just vanish from the 2013/2014 list. Obviosuly after dropping off the tour they didn't retain WSA membership, so after being removed from the ranking list it doesn't match up to our table which does have those players.

It's not ideal having to use older sources, but we have no choice since we need sources that match the table. Betty Logan (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]