Talk:World Snooker Championship

message: This page is an expansion of the old "Embassy World Snooker Championship" page. I've also rewritten a fair amount of it.
If anyone can help, I'd like to know how to get a table of contents. Also, the list of winners could probably be improved. --Auximines 10:52, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work on the expansion. Just a heads up, even when you are going to expand an article under a new name, use the "move this page" button to move a page first rather than just copying and pasting the content. This preserves the edit history of the old material with their original authors, and the new stuff with you. If you run into any problems, give me or another admin a shout. You've been around about or month or so right? Give it another month or so and I will nominate you for adminship myself as I can see you are doing good things for Wikipedia. (I would nominate sooner, but there are some inflexible people at Requests for Adminship who care more about time served and number of edits rather than quality of edit or behaviour and an unsuccessful application has in the past jeopardized future re-applications). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion of Embassy page

message: Regarding this event, the article states that the highest break of the tournament was achieved by Albert Cope who scored 60.  However, another website (The Global Snooker Centre) claims that the highest break was 57 by Joe Davis.
Does anyone know which of these is correct? ChicXulub (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Albert Cope's 60 comes from another page on the same site, . I assumed that the 57 by Joe Davis really meant the highest break in the final, though it's not clear. --Auximines 08:16, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 1927 World tournament

message: Does anyone know why the 1966 world tournament ended with a score of just 5 - 2 ?  ChicXulub (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just found out, it was a series of matches. Fred Davis won 5 matches to 2 matches. --Auximines 08:16, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 1966 World tournament

message: Is it open to both sexes or are only the men currently good enough to qualify? If only open to men, why? EdX20 20:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The World Championship is not open for women as this is the mens league. There is a women snooker league but i don't know anything about it other then it's existence. Efforts should be made to find out more about this and metion it in the article. -- CrazyChip 13:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A feature on the BBC coverage at this years championships would suggest that wasn't correct.  It was on the women's leagues and how female snooker has suffered a lot in recent years.  After they cut back to the studio Steve Davis made the point, in response to a question from Hazel, that there isn't anything to stop a female entrant to the WC, or any of the ranking tournaments - they simply have to get through the qualifying, and the problem is that the quality isn't there.  Neither the WC or the ranking circuit are called the "Men's" anything. SFC9394 16:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Both sexes?

message: The table is very nice.
Would it be possible to distinguish between the active players and the non-active ones?
Maybe write their names in Bold style? 77.125.90.119 (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Records - Active/Non-active 

message: Surely it should always be referred to as the ‘Snooker World Championship’ - how often do you hear about the ‘World Football Cup’?
137.108.145.250 (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The official name of the tournament is "World Snooker Championship". See: World Snooker hompage. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 09:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

text: "World Snooker" is the name of the governing body, and because there was only the one professional championship back in the 1960s it was just known as the "World Snooker Championship", a bit like how Wimbledon is known as "The Championships". It's a bit anachronistic but the name has stuck. There have been three professional snooker world championships down the years: The Billiards Association & Control Council snooker world championship; the Professional Matchplay Championship; the World Snooker Championship, which started in 1969 and is known as the "modern era/modern world championship. Betty Logan (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Snooker Championship? 

message: If all the players who made the semi-finals but not the finals were included in the table (since 1969), how big would the table become? Does anyone know off hand? I suspect it would roughly double in size. To prevent the table becoming too big, I think it is a good idea to just show data on finalists, but in that case it should state that somewhere on the article's page.115.176.188.76 (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, only players who reached the final should be added to the table, but the information about the number of their semi-final appearances should be retained too. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 22:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I half wonder if it wouldn't be better if we transferred this list to the "List of world champions", since it is data just on the finalists rather than everyone who competed in the world championship.  We could put it under the Champions section that lists all the finalists, so it would follow on more naturally from that section: List_of_world_snooker_champions#Champions. We could also include the quarter-final and last 16 placings too, because at the moment we include winner/runner-up/SF and last 32 placings and just miss out QF and Last 16 placings, which seems rather arbitrary. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a transfer is a very bad idea  as "List of world champions" is not about finalists. If you want feel free to create "List of World Snooker Championship finalists". This table would perfectly with in it. 23:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of Table? 

message: I think the semi-finalist section of the table needs to be improved. The figures as they stand now are not the number of times a player was knocked out in the semi-final stages, but the number of times they have reached that stage or better.
So I changed the title in the table from “semi-finalist” to “semi-finalist or better”.
Jojikiba (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No your wrong. "Semi-finalist" don't have to mean they lost in the semi-final. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 22:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well don't you think "semi-finalist" suggests they lost in the semi-finals? I think it could confuse some people to leave it as just "semi-finalist". Jojikiba (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. But "Reached semi-final" will be better. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 00:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Reached semi-final" is OK but the problem is it sounds like they didn't go past it. If people want the figures in the table to mean how many times the players reached the semi-final, that’s fine, but the figures would have to be changed. At the moment the figures are for how many times the players reached the semi-final and final combined. So “Semi-final or better” more accurately describes the figures as they are now. Jojikiba (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I didn't think about that. Have no other ideas. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 01:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-finalist section of table

message: There are 3 or 4 dead links in the references, but I don't know how to mark it, so I would ask someone who knows how to do it to do it. :)-- Kukac (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 15:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: Who is the oldest winner?  We have a youngest record, but not oldest.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.13.140 (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea. If you have a name and a source for it, than feel free to add it. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Records - Oldest Winner? 

message: The article currently contains a table that, according to the title, should show the top performers of the modern era. However, in reality it contains all performers of the modern era (i.e. every player who has reached at least one World Championship final). So I was wondering whether we should trim this down to for instance a top ten to make this table more true to its title. Tvx1 12:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, the table as it currently is, is too long and as you say shows everyone who has made a final. I think the top 10 is the right place to cut it off as that would show all double champions.Jobscomforter (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top performers of the modern era. 

message: I'm wondering if any one has any thoughts about these, in relation to the World Championship. Modern Era starts in 1969, Crucible Era in 1977. It seems to me there is more use of the Crucible term and perhaps we should reflect that and give up the Modern term. The main change is that Ray Reardon loses most of his titles. Personally I don't see a problem since there's no difference to ignoring Joe Davis's titles. There is also use of the modern era term generally in a less precise way. eg Ronnie is "one of the most successful players in the sport's modern era", but I think that's rather a different issue. Nigej (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the term "modern era" for several reasons: the 1969 date coincides with the start of the WSA's administration of the world championship and the return to the familiar knock-out format (prior to 1969 the world championship was administered by the BACC on a challenge basis, and before then you had the "unofficial" Professional Matchplay event) and the format and administration has been relatively stable since then. Secondly, in an era of globalization and substantial Chinese investment the event is not guaranteed to remain at the Crucible, so the "modern era" frame offers more robust continuity. I think this talk of the "Crucible era" generally only comes up on anniversaries (this year's event was the 40th time the Crucible had hosted the event). Furthermore, most of the Crucible era records are "modern era" records anyway: Hendry's record 7, the Crucible curse is effectively a modern era "curse", Thorburn being the first overseas champion, all the maximums have been made at the Crucible etc. Betty Logan (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Era or Crucible Era 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on World Snooker Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120423174044/http://www.worldsnooker.com:80/page/NewsArticles/0,,13165~2743663,00.html to http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0,,13165~2743663,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on World Snooker Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130210111343/http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Records.html to http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Records.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/04022010/58/terry-griffiths.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/snooker/7998235.stm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This doesn't make sense to me. The page is about the snooker world championship, not the "modern era of the snooker world championship". Only listing modern era champions in the "most titles" seems a bit disrespectful to me. As I said, it's a page about the entire history of it - not just post 1969
Joe Davis had 690 century breaks, after all. That's twice as many as Steve Davis and 10x as many as Ray Reardon. It's not as if the quality went up in the 1970s. It went down. Way down. It seems a shame he's so marginalised when he would have won multiple world championships in any era. And is probably the 2nd or 3rd greatest player or all time
A century break, is a century break, after all. It doesn't matter who the opponent, sat there watching you is. And Joe Davis had nearly as many as Ronnie O'Sullivan!
Couldn't you have a ranking of modern era champions, and then a ranking of all champions? That would be better  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.173 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  only listing "modern era" world champions, in most titles list? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on World Snooker Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/04022010/58/terry-griffiths.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113023019/http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournament_news%28id18688%29-61.htm to http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournament_news%28id18688%29-61.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/snooker/7998235.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0%2C%2C13165~2743663%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120510171559/http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0%2C%2C13165~2756991%2C00.html to http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0%2C%2C13165~2756991%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130402161339/http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/WorldChampionshipEventArticle/0%2C%2C13165~3121136%2C00.html to http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/WorldChampionshipEventArticle/0%2C%2C13165~3121136%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140327090843/http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0%2C%2C13165~3720833%2C00.html to http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/NewsArticles/0%2C%2C13165~3720833%2C00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've removed the line "In 1969 the WPBSA took over regulation of the professional game from the BACC and staged a knockout tournament" as it is not supported by The Times source stated. The Billiard Player magazine for August 1968 says "the World Professional Snooker championship has reverted to a knock-out basis for next season's competition. For the first time since 1952, it will be organised and administered solely by the Billiards Association. ("Tough first round for Pulman," page 5, author not stated.) The September 1969 issue says "The BA &CC and Professional Billiard Players Association have reached agreement regarding procedure for turning professional and other events governed by the BA CC." ("B.A. & C.C. Official", page 8, author not stated.) The PBSA disaffiliated from the BA&CC from 1 October 1970 (The Billiard Player, October 1970, p. 4, author not stated.) and was renamed the WPBSA on 12 December 1970 ("Black Ball Farce and Cue Ball Wizards" by Clive Everton, p.45). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: From The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker p.7:"While the BA and CC had tried to run the professional game, they failed miserably, and in 1971 the WPBSA took it over completely." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Era/WPBSA 

message: The world snooker championship dates back to 1927, so why are the first 41 years of winners and finalists excluded from the table? Starting at 1969 because someone (who?) decided that's the start of the 'modern' era seems very arbitrary to me. The tournament reverting back to a knockout format in 1969 was hardly momentous when the inaugural 1927 championship also used that format, as did most subsequent editions. As another commenter above noted, the 1977 move to the Crucible might be a more appropriate cut-off point, but still arbitrary. It would be akin only counting Open Era Wimbledon winners. A change in format, prominence or status does not mean the event's earlier history should be ignored. Otherwise rename the article World Snooker Championship since 1969. JMO.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.244.89 (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does cover the whole of history of the event, even if the table doesn't. The modern era is used by many if not all modern sources. Perhaps you'd prefer list of World Snooker Championship winners? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The only source given here for a modern era is a passing mention in a Telegraph article, which probably just copied wikipedia anyway. In any case, the article is about the world championship, not the modern era of the world championship.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.132.139 (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with that. The "modern era" has historically been used for recentism, to say that Joe and Fred Davis' records aren't worth counting. They should definitely be included. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Personally I'd go for Crucible Era which seems to me to much more frequently talked about, and 100% clearly defined (see earlier discussion from 2016). I agree though that we'll hear much today about Ronnie equalling Hendry's record, which is not the record at all. Nigej (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard both 69 and 77 used as dates. It's not too bad using "Hendry and O'Sullivan have won the most world titles in the games Crucible/modern era if that's what the source is, but obviously we should be thorough and cover all tournaments. I've found it a little subjective, as modern era is often used from 69 when someone doesn't discount Reardon. This article for sure should count Joe, Fred, Walter ect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that's right, it was originally done to get Reardon to the top of the list. I just don't see the 1969 to 1976 "era" as being that clearly defined. Some season-long events like the old days, Two "Eddie Charlton" organised in Australia, 1976 played at two venues. Really it's only 1973 and 1974 that were at all similar to the later Crucible tournaments. To me, its either all from 1927 or Crucible era. This "modern era" idea doesn't work for me. Nigej (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Winners

message: Ronnie O’Sullivan is now the oldest champion at 46 years 148 days 78.145.191.185 (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest Champion 

message: Hi, Can we have a table with the results for just the modern era (from 1969 I think was how this Wikipedia article used to have it)?
All news outlets and publications that I have seen talk about the record being seven world titles, shared by Ronnie O'Sullivan and Stephen Hendry.
I don't really see a problem with having one table for all players, and one for just the modern era. BrightOrion (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: i think many/most sources talk about the crucible era rather thsn the modern era. Given that the article covers all world championships I think we should stick to the current table. Bizarrely many people believe that 7 is the record and we can hopefully educate them that that is nonsense. Nigej (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table for just the modern era?