Talk:List of World Snooker Championship winners

Massive edits by 88.104.72.69

Resolved

 – Article rearranged for clarity.

Anyone else perturbed by this? 88.104.72.69 removed a very large chunk of material, all on the basis of "Guiness Book doesn't say that", as if that is the only possible source. I propose a revert, backed with authoritative snooker sources. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw it go - roughly agree with you. I didn't revert because I don't really have anything which says otherwise and the edits aren't plainly wrong. That being said the Guinness book of records is not much of an authoritative sources on anything - most certainly not on the definition of what a World Championship is. SFC9394 23:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I figure the WSA and/or IBSF must have stats lists that can be cited. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Source could be more primary, but WWW Snooker isn't known for lying. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, Hopefully it shouldn't get changed back. If folks have issues then at most it can get a note at the bottom expanding on what happened during that time period, but it certainly shouldn't be completely wiped. SFC9394 23:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The World Matchplay is not the world championship. It was a separate tournament set up after a disagreement betwen the players and the billiards control council who ran the world championship. That is why there are two tournaments in 1952 - the world championship won by Horace Lindrum and the World Matchplay won by Fred Davis. The BCC owned the rights to the snooker world championship and the world matchplay was never a BCC tournament. If you check the Guinness Book of records which has a vigorous vetting procedure you will see the World Matchplay records are not included in the snooker world championship records - the Guinness Book of records may not be the definitive source but it endeavours to be as factuals as possible, and no doubt checked the official trophy (which is why it cites Horace Lindrum as the first overseas winner as opposed to Cliff Thorburn as is commonly misrepresented by the BBC broadcasts). If you ever bother going to the Crucible in Sheffield and look at the trophy you will see for yourself that the world matchplay winners' names are not on the trophy, simply because it was a separate tournament. If you read the player profiles on wiki you will see there is a disctinction made between the world championship and the world matchplay. They are not the same tournament so please don't treat them as such because it misrepresents the facts. The world matchplay was run by a different administration, in a different location with a different trophy - to all intents and purposes a different tournament. There is nothing to stop another administration setting up an alternative world championship, but would you expect the records to be mixed in here which explicitly refers to the BCC/WPBSA world championship? 88.104.9.216 16:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly advise that you learn more about Wikipedia before running around deleting things. While editors are encouraged to be bold in improving the encyclopedia, removing information from it is generally not an improvement. Massive deletion edits are generally treated as article vandalism and if you do not stop, you will be blocked from editing. It is standard Wikipedia practice to combine related topics which have (or which would only have) very short articles into merged articles that provide more depth and coverage than separate stub articles would, until such time as the two or more closely related topics have enough material to warrant being split into separate articles. Part of the function of WP:SNOOKER (WikiProject Snooker) is to come to consensus on what snooker articles should be split and what should be merged. Just because you happen to disagree with their collective assessment is not justification for deletion of material from the encyclopedia. If you believe that the readership would be better served by two separate articles, then by all means please joine WP:SNOOKER and make a case for an article split at the project's talk page, or do so here. Or, since you've already written up much of it in the course of arguing above, why not simply improve the article by factoring in some of those details so that the difference between the tournaments is more clear? Just repetitively ranting in edit summaries and vandalizing the article is not going to convince anyone of your point of view. PS: I think you may be laboring under the misconception that "World Snooker Champion" can only possibly have one meaning. I believe most people would disagree with you. The term "World Champion" is used across the entire spectrum of sports to mean "winner of a broadly international competition", regardless of whether the words "World Championship" happen to appear in the name of the event. If you understand that, I think you will be less upset with the article. Please also see WP:MASTODON, WP:TEA and WP:DGAF. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I.e., yes, if some new, competing "International Professional Snooker Union" arose and held new "IPSU World Snooker Championships", we absolutely would put the results of those tournaments in this catch-all article, at least until such time as a consensus arose that each of these sets of tournament results needed separate articles. I think every single party concerned would agree that the organisations and events should have separate articles, of course. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: If you have found that the Guinness Book is conflicting with BCC/WPBSA and IBSF information, please post about that here; it is quite possible that this list is incomplete or that certain facts on it could be disputed. I.e. no one is discouraging you from either disputing facts or clarifying the articles, just from hacking its limbs off. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There are several facts to consider here:

1) The content is clearly at odds with the Guinnes Book of records, something wiki should take seriously - it is not compiled by internet hobbyists for a start.

2) The World Snooker Championship is an officially sanctioned WPBSA tournament - the World Matchplay was not. If you want to include the results of the world matchplay the onus is on you to provide the an OFFICIAL source by an OFFICIAL BODY representing the PROFESSIONAL PLAYERS that the world matchplay is now accepted as a world championship tournament, not a link to a Dutch fansite.

Any further reversions without at least the second of those criteria being met will result in you being reported to admin and it will be left in their hands, but I seriously doubt they will take the non-Guinness line on this. 88.104.19.238 01:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Before making admin noticeboard threats, please actually read the policies. No one here (not even you) has violated WP:3RR. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points of order. Firstly I have reverted back - I would not view the revert as permanent, but temporary - restoring the article to its state before this disagreement erupted until an adequate solution can be found. Secondly, I am confident a solution can be found - it is not a vastly complicated issue, and simply requires the appropriate wording to be hammered out. Thirdly, to best facilitate that hammering out it is best that good faith is assumed - "reported to admin" doesn't happen here - this is a content dispute, bearing in mind the rules on maximum reverts and civility, there is not much for admins to do - they are not gatekeepers for articles. I would propose a sensible compromise to be reached - it doesn't seem difficult to incorporate a marker or label into the list denoting that some specific years were World Matchplay not WPBSA. SFC9394 01:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I've taken care of that in a very basic way, though it could probably use a lot more explanation. 88.104.whatever: It would have taken you 5 seconds to make such an edit yourself, instead of editwarring over massive deletions against consensus. There's a guideline/essay I could refer you to with regard to this sort thing, but I'd be a WP:DICK if I did so. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

88.104.whatever.it.is.today: Good job on the table splitting. I think the new version works very well. The only quibble I might have is in a new topic, below. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The secondary tables should be more inclusive

I think that the "By player" and "By nationality" summary minitables should come at the end and include both events, otherwise they are of reduced usefulness. One could argue that both tournaments should have both of these sections, but a) there weren't enough WM events to warrant this, and b) it would create redundant headings that break the ToC (i.e. there would be two [[#By player]] links, which is a no-no). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I will have a look at that now. 88.104.47.35 19:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks okay. There is now a distinction between the two events which I think is necessary. Because some links on the other pages link to the 'World Matchplay (snooker)' then maybe a redirection link should be set up to come to this page.

Looks good to me too. However, I'm skeptical about redir'ing World Matchplay (snooker) (which can probably really just be World Matchplay as the name isn't likely to be ambiguated) to this article, since WM is given very little attention here. The entire controversy and the resulting events really deserve their own article, but redir'ing to this one will very likely keep that from happening, possibly for years. Redlinks inspire people to write articles, while poor (for the subject matter sought; I'm not making an overall value judgement abut this list!) article often do not. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind either way but the World Matchplay references are already slightly messy in other articles noticebly the Pulman/Fred davis entries were some of the links are in red inka nd the others just link to the world championship page. I suppose it doesn't matter really but they probably should be consistent so that the links do actually point to the same place. 88.104.47.35 22:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. My vote is for redlinking all of them, unless the instance in that particular case is about winning the World Matchplay event, in which case the link to this article would be apropos. If it's just a mention of W.M., or mention of less than a runner-up placing in the W.M., it should redlink to the W.M. not-yet-article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Refs vs. footnotes

I further propose converting the extant commentary footnotes into {{Ref label}} and {{Note label}} pairs, in a ==Footnotes== section, then citing sources (organisation websites or publications, Guinness Book with ISBN and other details, etc.) with <ref ...>...</ref>, <ref ... /> and (under ==References==) <references />. I have observed a general, though not utterly absolute, consensus that the Cite.php <ref ...>...</ref>, <ref ... /> and <references /> features should be reserved for reference citations only, especially since the <references /> feature can only be used once per article, while the ref/note system was designed to be for both reference citations and informative footnotes. Oh! Actually, use {{Footnote label}} and {{Note label}} instead of {{Ref label}} and {{Note label}}. See Template talk:Footnote label for why (short version: bots might otherwise later mistakenly convert it back to <ref> format). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to alter the aesthetics then I really don't a have a problem, just so long as the distinction betwen the events and the notes on how the records are usually interpreted are maintained. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.104.47.35 (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Certainly. The content of the notes wouldn't change at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi All. The bottom link in your "references" section is out-of-Date (404). Looks like that site (www.worldofsnooker.co.uk) has almost nothing on it any more except league results. Someone might want to correct :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.192.195 (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Jackie Rea

Since he was Northern Irish Professional Champion for every year until 1972 (or so it says in his page), surely he should be given Northern Ireland nationality for his final appearance in 1957, whilst he still played for Northern Ireland? Alex Holowczak 13:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly bogus anon edit

Resolved

 – The right score is 25-12

            old                                      new
| align = "center" | 25–12	+	 | align = "center" | 25–21

Diff. Someone please check that with a source. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Resolved

 – Merge completed.

I have proposed that List of champion snooker players (formerly List of notable snooker players be merge here into List of World Snooker Champions, on the basis that the former serves no encyclopedic purpose.

Hi, I would partially oppose the move. The page has had a patchy history, first being AfD'ed when it was titled "notable players" due to potential POV concerns. The compromise was "champion players" which, now that I look at the page, I am not really 100% with. The aim (and I think it is a very sensible aim) is to get together a article with the "names" of snooker. I would use the word notable but it has been stricken from the record as being POV. Essentially we want an article that highlights the big names in snooker - but not at the preclusion of having won the world championship. People like Jimmy White - and a more recent example in Ding - I think are important to be included in the ensemble without only having a mention in the ridiculously long List of snooker players. Thoughts welcomed (this can be cc'ed across to the article talk page if there are more noises, but they are pretty low traffic pages and issues). SFC9394 (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[I have moved the discussion to here, since others might want to participate; better safe than sorry. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› ]

The problem is that such an exercise as you describe is POV, by definition. At least being World Champ is an objective criterion. The "champion snooker players" list is almost certainly destined for AfD as soon as someone notices its subjectively inclusive nature. The World Champions list is safe, since it is documentable and objective, so no one can attack it on the grounds of it being nonencyclopedic.

I've looked around and so far can't find a list like the champion players list at issue for any other sport or activity. No list of baseball greats or brilliant minds in chemistry or top-dog race car drivers or world's most influential rock albums. This strongly suggests to me that such lists aren't encyclopedic per WP:NPOV, and where they have been created they've either been deleted or converted to objective criteria like world record holders in baseball, Nobel prize-winning chemists, winners of the Indianapolis 500, Billboard Chart No. 1 albums, etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: An additional problem is that the merge-from article goes into stub-level depth about everyone on the list, making it redundant with the individual articles on each of the players. The merge-to article (this one) sensibly does not do that, and looks just like other Wikipedia list articles. WP:SNOOKER also has way too many lists of players; someone just created another one 5 days ago (for all top-16 players ever; I have been thinking of AfDing it myself on the basis that it is tatamount to trivia and is what WP:OVERCAT calls a non-defining intersection (so it wouldn't even be good to convert it into a category): "almost a champion" is not a defining characteristic of an article subject. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Brought this up for broader discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#"Top-X" and "legends" articles. PS: If the subjective list is not encyclopedic, as I suggest, there really isn't anything to merge. Same probably goes for the new Top-16 snooker players article, created I think on Dec. 1. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I say we should just redirect it: don't see how it's our position to say who are the names of snooker. And there's nothing stopping us from expanding the lead in the world champions list and mentioning that Jimmy White has been runner-up 6 times and whatnot; in fact it should be actively encouraged, let's improve the content we've got before diffusing it further into more reams of electronic listery. Flowerparty^☀ 21:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I vote it is left as it is. The list of snooker champions doesn't explicitly refer to players that have won the world championship. They have different purposes - that list is for players that won a major snooker tournament supposedly. Would the likes of Jimmy White and and Marco Fu be scrubbed if it were merged. I think it is a good idea to have a list of players that have won a ranking title or major invitational. WalterMitty (talk) 11:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've sat on this a long, long time, and finally just decided to act, and merge them. I had referred the issue to WT:SPORT for broader discussion, which did not ensue. The main rationale offered against the merge, by WalterMitty, effectively supports a non-neutral point of view and undue weight, by including three, and only three, non-World Champion players in the merged-from list. The old list was in fact not a list of players that had won a major snooker tournament, but a list of World Champions plus three personally-selected non-WC contenders, and has been that way since at least deep in 2007, probably even earlier. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker#Lists/categories of snooker tournament victors, since it is really beyond the scope of this article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Pulman-Williams 1965

The Pulman-Williams contest in 1965 WAS in fact played in the format of 47 matches - NOT frames. Please do not keep removing the (matches) tag after the scoreline. Sources? Read the third question in this page. Or read any of Clive Everton's snooker books; for instance The Embassy Book of World Snooker or Guinness Book of Snooker. /Bellatrix9 (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

All information has to referenced otherwise it will be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Modern era distinction

On the World_Snooker_Championship page, the Records section is split to Top performers of the modern era and General records and statistics that mentions the earlier champions as well. Shouldn't this article do the same? See the "by player" table for example. I would suggest splitting the table to 2 tables. Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean a table for pre-1969 world champions and another for the modern era. I think that would be ok if you wanted to do that. You would need to split the nationality table as well. Betty Logan (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-contained subsections

When looking at the 'By player' subsection it was not immediately clear what the 'Total' column ment. It has to be the total of something, so I changed it 'Total championships won'. Apparently Armbrust didn't like that and reverted - I do not agree. The term 'Total' must be changed to something more explicit or an explanation will be needed in the subsection. Thøger (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What could in this article "Total" anything another then "Total championships" mean? Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Scrunched table

I notice some editors have objected to the table being too scrunched up. I've had a go at tightening it up by making the images slightly smaller and adding some "nowraps". By the time we get to the crucible era all the entries are constrained to one line at a 1024 resolution. The table is at User:Betty Logan/Sandbox/templates/t1. Anyway have a look at it, I think it's a reasonable compromise. Betty Logan (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Not like it very much, as gives too much white room at the bottom of the page and the caption's take the same height as the pictures. Better would be to restrict images to multiple champions and don't use {{multiple image}}. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, we have more white space below the images in the current version. I agree it doesn't look nice, but it's more important to make the table readable. I agree in limiting it to multiple world champions though, and if we shorten the captions we can widen the table like this: User:Betty_Logan/Sandbox/templates/t2. Betty Logan (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks okay, but it shouldn't contain non-free images. Removed them for you. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it cannot contain non-free images, per policy. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 23:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Made some changes to the sandbox version and it isn't scrunched in 1024x768. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That looks fine, we may as well copy it in. Betty Logan (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing?

95.135.111.186 keeps changing the color code key and the Steve Davis entry in the List_of_world_snooker_champions#Multiple_champions section; being "active" on the tour and compteing in the latest championship are not tautological i.e. you can be active on the circuit and not necessarily compete in the championship. The most recent tournament is the 2016 Championship and Davis competed in it. These alterations are inaccurate and disruptive. Also, as Nigej points out in his edit summary not providing a date makes the information too vague and prone to becoming outdated. Betty Logan (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Steve Davis retired already. Source: [1] 95.135.111.186 (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I know he has retired but that's not particularly relevant to this article or the chart. The color coding indicates which players competed in the latest championship, which Davis did do. Also, by removing the date you make the information less precise: if you remove the date it is not clear to readers if the color coding pertains to 2015, 2016 or even 2017 (as you intend it to). Finally, your edit actually violates WP:CRYSTAL because even though Davis has retired we don't actually actually know for sure if he will compete or not once the 2017 championship comes around. Betty Logan (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

By your logic, when Steve will be not highlighted? After the next tournament? After the next season? After the next ranking event? Retired mean retired as of now. No problem to add the date: Active players (as of 3 May 2016) 95.135.111.186 (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is not about Steve Davis' career, it is about one particular tournament. It is really very simple: players who contested the most recent championship are highlighted and those that did not are not highlighted. Betty Logan (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Really? And if player retired only from the last edition (due to ilness, for example)...? He will be highlighted or not? 95.135.111.186 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well obviously they would not be highlighted, because this article is not about who is retired or sick but about who competed in the world championship. We can state for a fact who competed in the most recent world championship, but now it predicts who you think will compete in the next world championship. For all you know Steve Davis could have a change of heart and Mark Selby could get run over by a bus. Betty Logan (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

No any reason to highlight the retired players. Article don't says now who will compete in 2017. Article says, Active players (as of May 2016) 95.135.111.186 (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Who is "active" (which is subjective in itself) is inconsequential to this article. What matters is who competed in the championship. Steve Davis competed in the latest championship just as Ronnie O'Sullivan did, just as Mark Selby did, just as John Higgins did. You get the picture. This is not an article about Steve Davis or the tour. It is an article about the world championship and Steve Davis has competed up to the latest one. Betty Logan (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

And again, Steve Davis retired already. He is not in the Tour. Read the source: [2] 95.135.111.186 (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes I know, but what exactly does that have to do with this article? This article is about who has competed in the world championship, so which world championship has Steve Davis not competed in? If Steve Davis competes in the 2017 world championship would Steve Davis be highlighted or not highlighted under your reconfiguration? Betty Logan (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The same as for the articles Century break and List of snooker players by number of ranking titles, where retired (or active) players AS OF NOW are highlighted. No reasons why Steve must be "retired" in that articles (read: "Players currently not on the World Snooker Main Tour.") and "not retired" here. 95.135.111.186 (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Which is a non sequitur as far as this article goes because they are career lists. This article is specifically about the world championship and the highlighting pertains to the most recent championship, not to retirement. Retired players such as Davis and Hendry are still eligible to enter the world championship, so having highlighting for retirement makes little sense in that context. If a retired player enters the world championship then it would not make sense for him to not be highlighted. The only point the highlighting is to show who is competeing in the current world championship, which becomes the most recent one until we know the draw for the next one. Betty Logan (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Main article World Snooker Championship also says: Active players are shown in bold with the same logic as in the abovementioned articles (Steve without bold also). 95.135.111.186 (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Just because it's done another way on another article does not mean we should follow suit here. Will you please answer the question: if Steve Davis (or Stephen Hendry for that matter) enter next year's world championship should they be highlighted or not? Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It must be the same bold/unbold as in the articles World Snooker Championship, Century break and List of snooker players by number of ranking titles etc. 95.135.111.186 (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Why won't you answer the question? If Steve Davis enters the tournament next year then should he be highlighted or not? It is a perfectly legitimate question. Betty Logan (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If he will be in the main tour (top 128) as a professional player then "yes". If not in the "128" and plays the exhibitions frames only then "no", I think. 95.135.111.186 (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Neither Steve Davis nor Stephen hendry have qualified for the main tour in the last few seasons. Hendry is retired but has a wildcard to enter main tour competitions, and Davis also has a wildcard too. Either of these players can effectively choose to enter the world championship even though they are retired, so being "retired" has no bearing their eligibility for the world championship. So, if Davis or Hendry choose to enter the world championship despite being retired should they be highlighted or not? Betty Logan (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

In that case, should they be highlighted in the articles World Snooker Championship, Century break and List of snooker players by number of ranking titles? 95.135.111.186 (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should player highlighting indicate whether a player has "competed" or is "active"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An editor altered the meaning behind the highlighting in the "multiple champions" table: [3]. Specifically, the highlighting used to indicate that the player will be competing in the next world championship (once the draw is made), is competing in the current world championship once it begins, and competed in the most recent world championship once it ends. And thus the cycle begins again with the next draw. The changes have altered the highlighting to indicate whether a player is now retired or not. The two meanings are not tautological because a retired player can compete in the world championship, and it is possible that a non-retired player does not compete in the world championship (through suspension/illness). Should the highlighting refer to option 1: the player is competing in the current (or most recent) world championship; or option 2: the player is merely "active" on the circuit? I suppose there is also an option 3, which is simply to drop the highlighting altogether. Betty Logan (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 1 I support the first option because it is precise and pertains to the tournament itself. The highlighting is traditionally used to add some contemporary relevance to the article i.e. you could see who is competing in the current tournament or competed in the most recent one. It was never used to "guess" who might be at the next one. Whether a player is "retired" (i.e. usually defined as not playing on the main tour) or not is irrelevant as far as our interest in this article goes i.e. if a player enters the world championship they should be highlighted, retired or not. Retired players are not barred from entering the world championship and have done so in the past, so predicting which players will or will not enter the next tournament on the basis of whether they are retired violates WP:CRYSTAL. I believe the highlighting should reflect the entry of the 2016 world championship until the draw is made for the 2017 world championship. Players who do not enter can be de-highlighted then. Betty Logan (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2, as made in related articles World Snooker Championship, Century break and List of snooker players by number of ranking titles. 95.135.111.186 (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Century break and List of snooker players by number of ranking titles are "career" articles so they list the stats in the context of the player's career, while the highlighting at World Snooker Championship should arguably follow the formalism at this article. By changing the meaning of the highlighting the IP has created a practical problem: I repeatedly asked the IP above whether the retired player should be highlighted or not even if they enter the world championship and he refused to answer this very basic question. Obviously, if a retired player continues entering the world championship then they should be highlighted, and he knows this which is which he refuses to answer the question. Betty Logan (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Option 2 This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. The article for the individual year's event is an appropriate place to call out who is participating in the current year, this page is about career statistics, active or retired is about the career, playing in this year's edition not so much.--John, AF4JM (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC) in response to RfC

• Option 1 This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. As such it should have precise information where possible. "Active" is such a vague concept to me. Whether someone played in the most recent World Championship is definable and only needs updating once per year. The trouble with "active" is that when someone "retires" someone has to remember that he's noted as being active on this page and make the appropriate change. Quite likely is that it'll only be corrected when the World Championship comes round again. Someone tried to put "active in 2016" in, which is even more vague since Davis was active on 1 April 2016 but not on 1 May 2016. I would get rid of "active" elsewhere too, if it was up to me. Nigej (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Modern Era or Crucible Era

see: Talk:World Snooker Championship#Modern Era or Crucible_Era if you'd like to comment. Nigej (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move page. (non-admin closure) — YoungForever^(talk) 20:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

---

List of world snooker champions → List of World Snooker Championship winners – This article is about the winners of the World Snooker Championship, rather than any other world snooker championship, such as the world amateur, world senior or women's world snooker championship. Either the scope of this article - to include other events, or the name should reflect that it is simply for one event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree the article would benefit from a rename but perhaps not the one proposed. The continuity is artificial and there has in effect been three professional world championships. The inaugural one administered by the BACC, the breakaway Professional Matchplay of the 1950s, and the current incarnation that began in 1969, administered by the WPBSA Betty Logan (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, that is true - there has been many names for this tournament - however, this title is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME in so much that we know that the World Snooker Championship is the chronology of the event in question. Whilst the pre-1969 events were not named as such, they are clearly denoted as being the same event as the WSC by many RS. I'm not sure of any better title that doesn't specifically state that the events are only this event, and not other such "world titles" in snooker. There are arguments that the World 6-red and World Cup are both world championships in a similar vein. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Seems the best choice of name to me. The main article is called World Snooker Championship and we're talking about the same event here. Nigej (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Comments The 1970/71 B&SCC Handbook list of champions (and runners up) from 1927 to 1970 is all under the heading "Snooker - World Professional Championship", and includes Lindrum in 1952 and the 60s challenge matches (but not the World Professional Match-play Championships - I don't think I've seen a book published later than this that excludes the Match-play championships). "World" was only added into the title from 1935 - the Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer source for this mentioned in 1927 World Snooker Championship supports this. Incidentally, Kobylecky, in what seems to be a well-researched book, claims that the 1972 World Championship was "the first to be held by the WPBSA" but I haven't seen another source for that assertion. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  Kobylecky makes perfect sense in this regard. The PBPA broke away from the BACC and was rebranded the WPBSA in December 1970 so the 1972 world championship would be the first played under the new formation (the 1971 world championship was played in 1970 before the name change). The three world championships prior to this (1969, 1970 & 1971) were held by a PBPA (now the WPBSA) and BACC partnership. However, it would be harsh to dismiss the 1969, 1970 & 1971 events on this basis because PBPA (WPBSA) involvement began with the 1969 event. Betty Logan (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  Changed to support. The proposal seems a reasonable and justified change, and I can't think of any better option. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support I am fine with it if everybody else is. I agree it needs to be renamed and the proposed rename is better than the status quo, despite not being perfect. Betty Logan (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support to make it clear it's about a specific contest called the "World Snooker Championship". JIP | Talk 21:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Makes perfect sense. —Ave (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Qualifiers / seeds

I think it would be useful to know which of the finalists came through qualifying, and possibly even add the seed number of the seeded finalists. --Jameboy (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that seeding/qualifying only started in the 70s, so we wouldn't be able to provide that information for half the list. Betty Logan (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Organisers

I think that from 1969 to 1971 the Championship was still run by the BACC/B&SCC rather than the PBSA/WPBSA. I'm not sure which source is being used for this information about the organisers in the table. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the BACC was still the organiser for the 1969 event at least. I recall an interview with Reardon when apparently he and Spencer had a showdown with the governing body because they were being barred from pro status, and thus effectively barred from challenging for the WC. They threatened to set up their own association and the following day they got calls offering them membership. Reardon isn't the most reliable source, prone to embellishing, but his story is consistent with the politics of the era. Betty Logan (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

In the move discussion above I note that 1969, 1970 and 1971 were hold under a BACC/PBPA partnership.I seem pretty sure of that although I can't recall where I got the info. Betty Logan (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you are right. Probably just needs a new entry in the key. Any ideas if any of your book sources actually detail this, or if it's an event by event basis. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

References

The references look a bit dodgy to me. I'm sure these can be fixed fairly easily. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• "The tournament is now played over seventeen days in late April and early May, and is chronologically the third of the three Triple Crown events of the season." doesn't seem to be cited.
• "The event was not held from 1941 to 1945 because of World War II and between 1958 and 1963 due to declining interest from players." - it's not explicit in the cited source pages that the championship was not held from 1941 to 1945, or that the break was due to the War. It doesn't verify that it wasn't held from 1958 and 1963, or the reasons. I'm sure this book can be used to verify the statements, but not from those pages. (Same applies for the relevant part of footnote c.)
• the majority of the second paragraph is not verified by the 1952 Glasgow Herald source.
• "the modern era, usually dated from the reintroduction in 1969 of a knock-out tournament format, rather than a challenge format" isn't supported by the cited sources as far as I can see.
• I checked a couple of the table entries that looked unlikely to be supported; I didn't see Central Hall, Kettering as a venue for the 1934 final, or Jersey Billliards Association Match Room, St Helier, for the 1957 final, being mentioned in the cited sources.
• "Player competed in 2023" has a reference from 2021.
• " Due to a disagreement with the Billiards Association and Control Club and the Professional Billiards Players' Association (PBPA), Lindrum and McConachy were the only players to compete, with most professional players playing in the World Professional Match-play Championship instead. As a result, Lindrum's title win is sometimes ignored, with Cliff Thorburn (CAN), Ken Doherty (IRL), Neil Robertson (AUS) and Luca Brecel (BEL) usually regarded as the only non-United Kingdom winners" - not supported by cited source.

BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)