# Talk:2024 UK Championship

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)
I've gone ahead and made that multiple images. The formatting could be different, so feel free to change it up. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, @Lee Vilenski. I think it looks better to have both venue images together. Just one issue — the caption says above and below, but on my laptop, the images are side-by-side. I don't have any experience doing multiple images, but maybe someone who does could take a look. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
It's horizontal by default. I've changed the text to say left and right.  Alan  (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Oh, that makes sense. On mobile it is on top of each other. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: If that's the case, it might be better to change it to vertical.  Alan  (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I've just done that - and it looks much better.  Alan  (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
looks good Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks to you both! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Was just looking into [1], but it doesn't look like it currently has any content. Has some been removed? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks OK to me.  Alan  (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Interesting. When I posted that, there was only three lines of content and "more to follow". Maybe it got cached on wst end Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This article now looks like it's in good shape. Does anyone have any issues with it being taken through the GA process? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: No problem atall. I do have one issue, which shouldn't affect the GA process, in that there are four Eurosport citations which I couldn't get the Wayback Machine to archive properly. I had to use Ghost Archive instead. They are: [2], [3], [4], and [5].  Alan  (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh, that's excellent work. Eurosport is a problem for archiving as it's region locked. Archiving in general is more good practice than something that should effect GAN. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
It just annoys me. Pedantic old fart that I am. If anybody is going to France anytime soon, let me know and I'll provide a list of 14 URLs (including the 4 from the UK Championship) that need to be archived using the "Save Page Now" function.  Alan  (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: My son lives in Barcelona so I asked him to have a go at archiving these. He just got the "geoblocking" page the same as us here in the UK. Maybe you need to be in the USA where I think the servers are located. Anyway, as you say, it shouldn't affect the GAN process, and the "Ghost Archives" work OK. I've kept a record of all the Eurosport URLs which were archived using "Ghost Archive" which you can find in my sandbox. There are 41 of them to date. By the way, the "Wayback Machine" also seems to have a problem archiving "tweets" from x.com.  Alan  (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: I have finally given up trying to get the "Wayback Machine" to work on Eurosport articles. It also has a similar problem with newspapers.com pages, so I've been using "Ghost Archive" for these as well in the Maximum break article, fairly successfully. So I've stopped keeping a record of these "ghosts" and will probably delete the list from my sandbox. No effect on the GAN process anyway.  Alan  (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm thinking of reviewing this article for GA as it's been hanging round for a while. Just taking a look through now. I have an issue with the use of non-breaking hyphens ({{nbh}}) in prose (because I can't search on any phrases containing them, using ctrl-F). There are loads in this article! Some of them can simply be replaced with the {{nowrap}} template, e.g. "17{{nbh}}year absence" can easily be changed to "{{nowrap|17-year}} absence". Some of the others are strictly speaking not necessary at all (in my opinion), e.g. what's wrong with having hyphenated compound phrases break across lines? ...second-biggest, semi-finalist, etc. If it's something to do with my keyboard then I guess I need to know. For that reason, I've brought it up on the template Talk page. Rodney Baggins .talk. 22:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to use the template for the results and for very specific cases. However, I see a dramatic overuse in this particular article. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:13, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2024 UK Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 10:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk · contribs) 17:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Some sections are worded confusingly or awkwardly - I've taken the liberty to fix these issues
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Earwig's copyvio detector does suspect a copyvio but for all the instances it is either a proper noun or quote from a player. All quotes are attributed; and the sources are adequate.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
I'm not exactly familiar with snooker, but I'd expect anyone who's reading this article are at least somewhat familiar with the subject matter, and would appreciate the in-depth summaries of the results of each match. It would be helpful if a more experienced editor could weigh in, though! After a bit more reading and recommendations from @CMD, I think that the coverage is good. For 3a, I think this article meets the just-right amount of detail for this tourney.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
not much to comment on
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
All images are either CC licensed and attributed or Fair Use
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
If a more experienced editor could weigh in for 3b, I think this page would be eligible for GA status.
As someone very familiar with snooker: I can maybe help improve some of the prose, with particular focus on the lead section which must be understandable to a wide audience who don't necessarily know anything about snooker.
I think the match detail is generally good, but I tend to think the first two main stage sections (First round and Second round) are a bit long-winded, too padded out with dull quotes, e.g. Trump: "It was a difficult game at the start, but I managed to turn it around and play some good stuff at the end." I think you could maybe cut out some of the less interesting quotes to shorten these two sections.
Also, most importantly: the headings for Quarter-finals, Semi-finals, and Final need to be at same level as First and Second round to show that they are all contained in the Main stage. Rodney Baggins .talk. 17:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
After re-reading the article, I think we're good for GA! Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)