Talk:2007 World Snooker Championship

message: I've shortened the opening paragraph, as most of the information there is already contained in the qualification section.Pawnkingthree 10:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I just saw the text being taken out and I wasn't sure why.  As a separate point, I plan to dab this article into the top of the snooker and WC pages tomorrow.  It is a good page for info on this WC and we are likely to have an increased amount of visitors looking for info on this championships (and things like the drawsheet are nice to study and tend only to get about 30 seconds of airing on the BBC each day). SFC9394 17:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Repetition

message: Would it be better to bump the drawsheet up to near the top of the article as people will have to scroll through all the qualifying info each time they want to check out a result... Seedybob2 10:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure of this article

message: I would be in favour of either dropping altogether or incorporating this section into another section.  In the grand scheme of things it is just Ronnie being Ronnie - I don't think for a moment that he seriously believes that - comments echoed by Jimmy White on Saturday on TV, "Ronnie doesn't really believe that".  I would say it very unlikely at the best of times, but a draw made in public by two TV presenters?  I don't think we should be giving undue weight to it - there is certainly no factual basis for believing it to be the case.  I will give it a day or so before cutting it - but it just reads a bit too "tabloid" at the moment for an encyclopaedia. SFC9394 21:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What section?  Is this post on the right talk page? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 22:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has gone now, I just incorporated it into the Notable moments chapter.  The way it was exists in the history prior to today - it just seemed a bit out of place and sensationalist. SFC9394 23:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing section 

message: Your odds link gives him as 2nd fav or JSF on 7 out of 22 bookies - does that constitute "considered by bookmakers to be second favourite"?  70% say he isn't. SFC9394 23:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The odds I went off were those issued by Stan James earlier this month when I placed some bets, where he was 11/2 second favourite.  On that survey of betting odds, seven have him down as 2nd, nine as third, three as 4th, one as 5th and just two as 6th, so my claim was actually more representative. 88.104.21.47 23:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: Can we agree that month-old stats, that only relate to the opinion of a 30% minority, are not enough to source the claim that Ding was "considered by bookmakers" in general to be second favourite? Then we can move on to the other matter. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 23:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Addendum: Anon-88 raises a good point.  Could we instead agree to something like "Ding was favoured between 2nd and 6th by bookmakers", with enough citations to demonstrate at least those two points on the spread? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 00:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have already given way on that point and I am willing to accept "among the favourites".  I would be reluctant to replace it with "between 2nd and 6th favourite" as it gives as much weighting to being 6th favourite when he was clearly priced second or third by most bookies. 88.104.21.47 00:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The BBC wordage of "among the favourites" sits best as a cover all the bases. SFC9394 00:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposed resolution of point #1: Say that Ding was "among the favourites" and cite two relevant references. Yes/no? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Resolution: Marking this one "Resolved" as both parties agree on "among the favourites" language. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 01:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Odds

message: PUT IN^^ --86.13.202.173 22:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranking points earned 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 2007 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/20110523045039/http://www.snooker.org/plr/wc_centuries.shtml to http://www.snooker.org/Plr/wc_centuries.shtml
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) 05:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2007 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/20080113023019/http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournament_news%28id18688%29-61.htm to http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournament_news%28id18688%29-61.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110310182352/http://www.global-snooker.com/professional-archive-world-snooker-championship-2007.asp to http://www.global-snooker.com/professional-archive-world-snooker-championship-2007.asp
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) 23:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified