Talk:World Open (snooker)

message: No sponsor for the Grand Prix this year, so the page should be moved to reflect this.
----
:Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
===Discussion===
:Add any additional comments
===Discision===
Moved per request. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Moved per request. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discision

message: I think if there were a photo of the trophy and some more information about the prizes won, it would add to the article, eg. highest break prize, runner up prize money, etc.
J.P.Lon 08:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo and Prizes

message: :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.
----
This article up until March used to include the World Grand Prix results (the 2015 and 2016 entries in the table) until this was contested by Armbrust. Armbrust contested the view that the World Grand Prix was not a rebranded continuation of the World Open, but a new tournament and removed the WGP results. He provided sources that referred to it as the "inaugural" tournament. This was contested by several editors who pointed out that World Grand Prix held the same spot on the calendar, had the same broadcaster and also used the historic Grand prix/World Open trophy which had the previous winners engraved on the trophy alongside those of the World Grand Prix. An IP editor initiated a cut and paste move which was subsequently reverted. This led to me proposing a rename at #Requested move 11 March 2016 for the article (to move the article to the World Grand Prix page) but the proposed move resulted in a "no consensus".
The question remains over what to do with the World Grand prix results. An IP is persisting in removing the results, effectively splitting the World Grand Prix content to its own article. The problem with this is that it has implications for performance table in the player articles. Case in point: if you look at Judd_Trump#Performance_and_rankings_timeline, you will see there is an entry for the World Grand Prix twelve tournaments down the list. This entry combines the World Open and World Grand Prix results as this article did: the problem though is that if a completely new article is created to house the World Grand Prix results the World Open/World Grand Prix entries in the performance tables need to be also split into separate entries too, otherwise the performance tables link to the wrong tournament. Up to 250 articles are affected in all.
So there are two options:
* No split - We retain the status quo in accoridance with the "no consensus" result from the move discussion and house the World Grand Prix results at the World Open article, and thus retaining the internal link integrity.
* Split - We split out the World Grand Prix results to its own article, but this will necessitate the fixing of the entries in the performance tables at the player articles that are effected by the split. 
Betty Logan (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the trophy is a written record of the winners of the event, so I would say that's quite a compelling source. But even if we do decide to split the results out what do you propose should be done about the World Open/World Grand Prix entries in the performance tables? Are you willing to go through these 200 articles fixing them or are you suggesting we leave them in a broken state? After all, there is not much point creating a new article if all the performance tables link to the World Open article, is there? Betty Logan (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Analyze of the trophies' records is original researh and not shown in the reliable sources. The "same spot on the calendar" and "the same broadcaster" are not relevant things here. Split entries in the performance tables, of course. 95.135.111.186 (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Analysis of the trophy is not "original research". It is a record of the event. Recording names on a trophy is no different to recording names in book. But will you please stop evading the point about the damage your edits have caused to the performance tables. If the consensus is to go ahead with the split are you prepared to do the follow-up work and fix the performance tables on the player articles, or are you going to persist in leaving them in a broken state? Betty Logan (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  If no split, then article 2016 World Grand Prix will be linked to World Open (snooker) as main article. Really nonsense. 95.135.111.186 (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop misrepresenting the problem to RFC respondents. If you look at the Judd Trump example I give in the RFC outline then anyone can plainly see the World Grand Prix link spans all the seasons from 2005/2006 up to 2015/2016. This link in turn links to THIS article. If you split the WGP results from this article then the World Grand Prix entry in the performance table needs to be replaced by two entries on two different rows, linking to the respective articles. Nigej explains the issue in clear and simple terms in the move discussion above. Someone who fails to recognize this very basic problem cannot be taken seriously in this discussion, because they are either unwilling or unable to acknowledge the fall-out from splitting the article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Analysis of the trophy is absolutely original research, because the trophy is a primary source, and reading names off the trophy counts as "interpreting" the primary source. WP:PRIMARYSOURCE says that . If a book or newspaper article tells us that the trophy is the same and they're the same event, then we can go with that, but we can't make that determination ourselves.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, although the trophy in 2010 and earlier may be the same one as is used now, the tournament apparently used a different trophy between 2011 and 2014 when it was the Haikou World Open. Here is Shaun Muprhy lifting the 2014 World Open: , while this is him lifting this year's World Grand Prix:   — Amakuru (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

text: This seems to be the coup-de-gras. Looks like we'll need to split. Nigej (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

text: 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.
===Post-RfC notes===
Please ensure that both articles address the confusing shared-trophy situation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Proposal to split World Grand Prix results to [[World Grand Prix (snooker)]]?

message: Please ensure that both articles address the confusing shared-trophy situation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-RfC notes