Talk:2024 UK Championship

Too many images

I think there are too many images clustered together at the beginning of the qualifying section. Do we need a picture of the venue where qualifiers were held? Do we need an image of Jimmy White? It would be great to streamline this because it looks cluttered. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the image of Hassen and the qualifying venue could be killed. If we need the image of the venue, we could merge it into the format section and maybe use {{multiple images}} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Link names once per major section

Hi all, @Lee Vilenski and I both are of the opinion that, in the tournament summary, wiki-linking names once per major section should be interpreted as on first use in the Qualifiers section and again on first use in the Main Stage section. Thereafter, please refer to a player by family name only unless there are two players with the same family name. Currently, some editors are linking names in every sub-section, which is overkill. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Sponsor link

@Lee Vilenski: You said yesterday that the sponsor should not be linked in the infobox, but HurricaneHiggins keeps reverting my edits which are compliant with your statement. Please advise.  Alan  (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually it is you who have been reverting my edits. Your changes make this article inconsistent with all other UK Championship articles, all of which have the tournament sponsor linked in the infobox whenever a sponsor and link are available. Consider the articles for 2022, 2021, 2020, etc., all the way back to 1977. All done the same way. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The MOS issue here is MOS:SEAOFBLUE: "When possible, do not place links next to each other, to avoid appearing like a single link ..." Maybe it's not "possible" but the sea of blue is not ideal. Nigej (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'd like to hear Lee's opinion, since he said yesterday at 14:13: "We don't generally link and give undue prominence to the sponsor."  Alan  (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

With respect to @Lee Vilenski, we do generally link the sponsor's name — as is self-evident to anyone who looks through the archive of UK Championship articles going back to 1977, as well as the archive of World Championship and Masters articles. Limiting myself to Triple Crown articles here, but I'm sure others show similar patterns. Even the WC articles from 2022 and 2023 that have recently been promoted to Featured Article status have the sponsors linked in the infobox. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

However they're clearly didn't get to be FAs simply because they link the sponsor in the infobox. Did anyone point out the MOS:SOB failure? Nigej (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

There's no "failure" to point out. Linking one or two extra words in an infobox does not create a "sea of blue." If it did, I'm sure one of the many GA or FA reviewers would have noted it as an issue. As I noted above, the vast majority of articles in the archives link the sponsor in the infobox. I don't see any rationale now for changing something that has been done a particular way for many years. It only creates unnecessary inconsistency. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thing is, this is just the name of the event. Why are we linking anything at all? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a valid point. Both the event name and the sponsor are linked in the opening paragraph. There should be no need to have them also linked in the infobox.  Alan  (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Primarily because the tournament articles covering the UK Championship back to 1977 almost all do it. So do the legacy World Championship articles. And the legacy Masters articles. And probably hundreds of other tournament articles. In short, we already have a substantial archive that is mostly consistent in how it handles this issue — which is to link both the tournament and sponsor in the header of the infobox. MOS:STYLERET covers advice for retaining existing conventions and styles rather than changing them in ways that create inconsistency. "When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." HurricaneHiggins (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's only true if we think that it's not wise to change it. I personally have always found it silly that we have a parameter for the full title of the event, and then put links in it. To me even though it's in an Infobox, we should still stick to WP:BOLDAVOID and WP:SEAOFBLUE.

I'm open to retaining the style, but having a wider discussion on how it should be implemented. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I personally believe that it's preferable to maintain consistency with the large volume of previous work, under the broad principle of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But I'm also happy to have a wider discussion on this, in the hope of reaching a consensus. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", but for this event, because of the length of the sponsor's name, I think the top of the infobox looks awful, with an automatic line‑break between "UK" & "Championship", and the WP:SEAOFBLUE.  Alan  (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that "2024 Victorian Plumbing UK Championship" isn't exactly the most compact or elegant title, that's not really something we can control, and the length of the title is the same regardless of whether words are linked or unlinked. My only concern here is with respecting long-established stylistic precedent so that we maintain consistency over the archive as a whole. If we decide to unlink all words in the header to the infobox, I am fine with that, but we would need to do it consistently over all articles — otherwise we would have some randomly linked and some randomly unlinked, which looks far worse in the bigger scheme of things. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we should make it consistent. I just don't understand why we do link it.

In terms of line breaks, I think it likely depends on what size screen you have. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why they are linked either. On line-breaks, I have a fairly big screen, but I think it depends on the width of the infobox set by the logo. In this case I think it would look better with a manual line-break between the "..Plumbing" and the "UK..."  Alan  (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)