# Talk:Maximum break

For information: I have renamed all of the citations in the main table to try to standardise them. Most of them are not re-used but it makes sense to have them named anyway. The ones that are re-used makes it easy to find cross-references. For instance, all of the citations in the "Match-winning maximum breaks" section are now re-used from the main table, as are many in the article's prose. Some entries (15 as of 29 March) still need suitable citations. For these I have used <ref name="CT_Archive_Max" /> as a default, which points to this archive. These 15 entries are numbers: 3, 15, 21, 24, 27, 28, 33, 35, 36, 45, 57, 64, 65, 66, and 69. If anyone can find suitable citations for any of these, please put them in place of the default. All of the names use the form <ref name="Max ###"> except where two entries use the same citation, in which case I have used <ref name="Max ### & ###">.  Alan  (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

...also note that there is an archived citation at the top of the main table called "WPBSA_Official_List", which points to this list. The WPBSA keep this list pretty-much up-to-date and so the archived version will become out-of-date and will need to be re-archived from time to time. It was last archived on 27 March and is therefore up-to-date for now.  Alan  (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 16 April.  Alan  (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
...also, please do not be tempted to use the brilliant scripts Reference Renamer or Reference Organizer, both of which will want to remove all of the names which have not yet been re-used.  Alan  (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 7 February.  Alan  (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Of the 15 entries with missing citations listed above, I have found six and added them to the main table. They are 24, 57, 64, 65, 66 and 69.So the remaining nine still needing citations are 3, 15, 21, 27, 28, 33, 35, 36 and 45. Please help if you can.  Alan  (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
@BennyOnTheLoose: Since you are really good at finding old newspaper articles (and I'm not), could you please have a look for citations for these nine 147s. They are:
Max 003: Kirk Stevens v Jimmy White on 28 January 1984.
Max 015: Peter Ebdon v Ken Doherty on 14 November 1992.
Max 021: James Wattana v Pang Weiguo on 18 September 1997.
Max 027: Stuart Bingham v Barry Hawkins on 4 February 1999.
Max 028: Nick Dyson v Adrian Gunnell on 22 March 1999.
Max 033: Karl Burrows v Adrian Rosa on 4 November 1999.
Max 035: John Higgins v Dennis Taylor on 21 January 2000.
Max 036: John Higgins v Jimmy White on 24 March 2000.
Max 045: Tony Drago v Stuart Bingham on 28 October 2002.
 Alan  (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
It's interesting that some sources contradict the numbering. Janice Hale in The Daily Telegraph referred to #3 as the fourth; Everton's article on #15 refers to it at the 17th. I guess Spencer's unofficial is included in both those counts. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Most done, AlH42, but I couldn't find an online newspaper source for Nick Dyson v Adrian Gunnell. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Wow! Well done Benny. If it's just the one, that's fine. I definitely asked the right person. Thank you.  Alan  (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
@BennyOnTheLoose: I just found and added a Eurosport reference for "Max 028", so that's all of them now!  Alan  (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Note: Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 14 April.  Alan  (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the WPBSA has got its list up-to-date to include both of Page's 147s, but the WST has only included one of them in its list. Alan  (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
WPBSA archive updated on 17 April (WST is not up-to-date yet).  Alan  (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Note: Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 25 April.  Alan  (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Note: Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 29 September.  Alan  (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Note: Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 2 October.  Alan  (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Note: Both WPBSA and WST archives updated. WPBSA on 8 October and WST on 10 October.  Alan  (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Note: Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 9 November.  Alan  (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The third paragraph in the lede has become too convoluted I think, specifying all these different prizes that have existed for making maximums. All that info should probably be moved to the dedicated prize money section, it doesn't seem necessary to include all that in the lede of the article since it's not relevant to the definition of a maximum break and only tangentially relevant for context of the significance of a maximum break. Maybe it could be replaced with just one short sentence that says that there have been different amounts of prize money over the years awarded to players making 147's and that's it. KDayne (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Since I haven't received pushback on this idea in over a week, I will be taking this into my own hands and effectuating the changes. KDayne (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

With all the maximums rolling in lately and the list getting ever longer, I think it might be worth thinking about creating a separate page for all the maximum breaks at some point in the future, something like List of maximum breaks but you know, that doesn't redirect to this article. This doesn't need to happen today or tomorrow but at some point, this list is just going to take over most of this article and I don't think that's what it's there for. Similarly to some actors that have their filmography in a separate article if they've been very prolific.
If we go that route, I think it would be worth thinking about if we would just include the list of officially recognized maximums on that page or if it could also serve for some additional info or stats that we currently also have on the main page. I would be grateful for some discussion and feedback. KDayne (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Certainly worth thinking about. I'd be interested to know others opinions, especially Nigej and Lee Vilenski.
For now though, I think we should leave things as they are. There are 227 at the moment, so maybe think about doing this when it gets up to about 300.
It would, however, mean editing two separate articles whenever a 147 is made.  Alan  (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't think we are quite at the stage of split into a list, but we aren't all that far off that. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
The article is approaching 9,000 words of readable prose, so splitting should perhaps be considered per WP:SIZERULE. We could try trimming some of the excess elements first though; do we really need a table of "final frame" maximum breaks. I think it was me or Armbrust that created it, but this was when it had only happened 5/6 times and it now seems to have outgrown its usefulness. If something truly unique happens it is generally recorded in the "Records" section. I also wonder whether we should trim the table of players who have made multiple maximums e.g. make it a simple top ten players or something—it just seems like it isn't a massive deal to make 2–3 maximums in your career these days. My mind isn't made up on any of these suggestions though, so I can probably be convinced either way, but just some things to consider. Betty Logan (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I 100% agree with Betty'a idea to trim the multiple maximums to the top 10 or so. 5 or more seems a suitable cutoff currently. When the table was first created there were about 10 players in the list (who had made 2). Now we've got more than 10 who've made 5. I'd also support getting rid of the final frame table. We then end up with an article which is mostly text followed by the main list, which seems ok to me. Generally I'd like to see just one article, not two. I suspect the text is getting a bit bloated. Nigej (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Also agree that the "Total maximum breaks" table should be cut down to "players that have made at least 5 maximums" instead of 2. The "Final frame maximum breaks" table could be deleted since all of that data is in prose in the "Final frames and matches" sub-section of "Records".
It should also be remembered that all of the citations in the main table are named and many are re-used in the prose, as per the naming convention that I set up last year (see earlier thread "Standardised reference names"). Other editors (including IPs) have stuck to this convention and it works quite well. This means that splitting the main table into a separate article would be problematic.  Alan  (talk) 07:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
That can be fixed, there's a tool you can use to name all refs and then later consolidate it. I'm also of the agreement that we should make the limit on multiple maximum breaks, either as five or more, or simply show the top 10. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:58, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Now that some days have passed since anyone contributed to this thread, it seems to me that a general consensus has been reached not to split the article up, but to leave it generally as it is, assuming that is OK with KDayne who originally raised the issue. The total maximum breaks table has already been cut down to "players who have made five or more" by Nigej, so that the only remaining issue is whether or not to retain the final-frame maximum breaks table. All of the data in this table, and all of the re-used citations, are repeated in prose in the final frames and matches sub-section of the records section. I think this was done by Betty Logan some weeks ago, and I have checked the data and it is identical in the table and the prose. It seems to me that we don't need to have both, but I can't decide which to remove. The table is easier to maintain, but the prose is more elegant and takes up less space. Opinions please.  Alan  (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
The prose pre-dated the table, but once the list had several entries I created the table, but this was several years ago. It has now reached the point where final frame maximums are not that big of a deal. Personally, I would scrap the table, but I also think the prose needs to be overhauled. I would get rid of the roll-coll in the first sentence and just concentrate on maximums in deciders and finals. The fact that the final frame table has now over 30 entries means the criteria is no longer that exceptional, and therefore reduces its value as a noteworthy statistic. Betty Logan (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Betty. Now that maximums are much more common we need to trim out some of the detail. The few couple of instances of something might be interesting but when there's so many there's very little to interest anyone, it becomes just stats. I'd get rid of the final frame table. Nigej (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that is fine with me, I was never too firm in my opinion on this, just wanted to raise the issue and see what other people think. I still think that it's worth thinking about a contingency plan at some point in the future, because how big can the list be and still be just part of this article? 300 maximums? 500? At some point, inevitable, I think there will come a point where this needs to happen. But I'm fine with it currently not being split up. KDayne (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
@KDayne: Not necessarily inevitable. See next thread.  Alan  (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I have been looking at ways to make the main table smaller and more user-friendly (although perhaps less editor-friendly). The idea is to make an extra row above each season, with a "hide/show" button in it so that the user can selectively collapse/expand each season. I have so far been unsuccessful. A search found this which is not very helpful. We also need to retain the sortable functionality. I have read through the collapse, collapse top, and collapse bottom documentation but have not got very far. If anyone has more information on how this might be achieved, please let me know.  Alan  (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Edit: Here's what I would think it might look like, for the first 15 entries, if I could get it to work:

 Alan  (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to making the entire table collapsible, but I think making it internally collapsible would compromise too much functionality. To obtain the desired effect you would need to nest tables, which would then make it impossible to sort the table by player, for example. Betty Logan (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
A lot of the issues with collapsible tables is that they aren't all that accessible. It tends to make the page size larger, makes user input higher and tends to be difficult for mobile and scrubbers. I'm not against a "list of maximum breaks" at some stage, but I don't think that time is now. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for the input. Pretty much as I thought, but it was worth having a go.  Alan  (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
...I have asked the question about the functionality of collapsing parts of table in both this help talk page and this template talk page but neither seems to get much traffic. Does anyone know of a beter place to post the question, where it might get a reply?  Alan  (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
...and I have created a feature request at: ⚓ T406703 Collapsing part of a Wikitable  Alan  (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
That was a complete waste of time and effort, so I have now given up.   Alan  (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
See this discussion regarding the TOC.  Alan  (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
TLDR — Alan: Can you implement this technical feature, please; Technical help: Program it yourself. Betty Logan (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: Assuming that "TLDR" stands for "too long, didn't read". I don't understand what you want me to implement.  Alan  (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
It's a joke, Alan. Betty Logan (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: Didn't get it, but I'm well known for not having a sense of humour. I want to put a note near the new TOC, about the odd results it gives if the table is sorted by player etc., but I can't decide on the wording. Nor can I decide whether to put a note underneath the TOC, or to put in a footnote (efn) next to it. I used to be indecisive but now I'm not so sure. Any input from you (or anyone else) would be welcome.  Alan  (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Just added a note for the TOC. Feel free to change the wording.  Alan  (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2025 (UTC)