Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Snooker

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

Resolved

– Just a FYI. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 09:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica^Tea? 00:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Country codes

@阿pp: "While the WST is using its own set of country codes apparently based on ISO 3166-1 alpha-3..." - I would be curious to learn those codes. Do you know where to find a list, please? --KnightMove (talk) 07:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments

Any views on these points?

"In international professional and amateur competition, it is normal practice for snooker players to represent their countries" - I'm not sure that they really do "represent their countries", for most individual tournaments, such as the World Snooker Championship. There are some events where they definitely do, of course.
"The use of the Ulster Banner has been a source of contention and it is often removed from snooker articles by editors citing the Manual of Style for icons." - maybe we can delete "and it is often removed from snooker articles by editors citing the Manual of Style for icons.", or perhaps this whole sentence.
"To use another symbol such as a shamrock or some other identifier for Northern Ireland players that is not used within that particular context within the sport would violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view and no original research policies." - can we delete this?
Do we need the "Matters for further consideration on the talk page" still?
Is "(for snooker bio stubs, this is usually a bio page at World Snooker or some other big site, and is the only source, upon which everything in the stub has been drawn)," needed?
"official MySpace page" - maybe change the example to Instagram or whatever he uses.
Can "However, consider that multiple reliable sources also use phrases such as "he lost 4–0". This is particularly true when writing about British English subjects." be deleted.
"Only three editors participated in the discussion so the decision may need to be revisited at some point, but the consensus stands unless a new consensus is reached." - isn't it time we revisited this, then?
"A very common example is the use of "managed to",..." - valid point but goes into a bit too much detail IMO.
The tone could be a bit more friendly and advisory in phrases like "The "External links" section in snooker articles is often misused."; "A frequent problem in snooker biography articles... is" and "or any other shorthand an editor here might like to make up."

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]