Talk:List of World Snooker Championship winners

message: I further propose converting the extant commentary footnotes into  and  pairs, in a ==Footnotes== section, then citing sources (organisation websites or publications, Guinness Book with ISBN and other details, etc.) with ...,  and (under ==References==) .  I have observed a general, though not utterly absolute, consensus that the Cite.php ...,  and  features should be reserved for reference citations only, especially since the  feature can only be used once per article, while the ref/note system was designed to be for both reference citations and informative footnotes.   Oh!  Actually, use  and  instead of  and . See Template talk:Footnote label for why (short version: bots might otherwise later mistakenly convert it back to <ref> format). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to alter the aesthetics then I really don't a have a problem, just so long as the distinction betwen the events and the notes on how the records are usually interpreted are maintained. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.104.47.35 (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly.  The content of the notes wouldn't change at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs vs. footnotes

message: Since he was Northern Irish Professional Champion for every year until 1972 (or so it says in his page), surely he should be given Northern Ireland nationality for his final appearance in 1957, whilst he still played for Northern Ireland? Alex Holowczak 13:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackie Rea 

message: old                                      new
 | align = "center" | 25–12	+	 | align = "center" | 25–21
Diff.  Someone please check that with a source. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possibly bogus anon edit

message: The Pulman-Williams contest in 1965 WAS in fact played in the format of 47 matches - NOT frames. Please do not keep removing the (matches) tag after the scoreline. Sources? Read the third question in this page. Or read any of Clive Everton's snooker books; for instance The Embassy Book of World Snooker or Guinness Book of Snooker. /Bellatrix9 (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All information has to referenced otherwise it will be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pulman-Williams 1965 

message: On the World_Snooker_Championship page, the Records section is split to Top performers of the modern era and General records and statistics that mentions the earlier champions as well. Shouldn't this article do the same? See the "by player" table for example. I would suggest splitting the table to 2 tables. Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean a table for pre-1969 world champions and another for the modern era.  I think that would be ok if you wanted to do that. You would need to split the nationality table as well. Betty Logan (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern era distinction 

message: When looking at the 'By player' subsection it was not immediately clear what the 'Total' column ment. It has to be the total of something, so I changed it 'Total championships won'. Apparently Armbrust didn't like that and reverted - I do not agree. The term 'Total' must be changed to something more explicit or an explanation will be needed in the subsection. Thøger (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What could in this article "Total" anything another then "Total championships" mean? Armbrust Talk Contribs 09:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-contained subsections 

message: I notice some editors have objected to the table being too scrunched up.  I've had a go at tightening it up by making the images slightly smaller and adding some "nowraps". By the time we get to the crucible era all the entries are constrained to one line at a 1024 resolution.  The table is at User:Betty Logan/Sandbox/templates/t1.  Anyway have a look at it, I think it's a reasonable compromise. Betty Logan (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not like it very much, as gives too much white room at the bottom of the page and the caption's take the same height as the pictures. Better would be to restrict images to multiple champions and don't use . Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 18:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, we have more white space below the images in the current version. I agree it doesn't look nice, but it's more important to make the table readable. I agree in limiting it to multiple world champions though, and if we shorten the captions we can widen the table like this:  User:Betty_Logan/Sandbox/templates/t2. Betty Logan (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks okay, but it shouldn't contain non-free images. Removed them for you. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it  contain non-free images, per policy. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  23:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Made some changes to the sandbox version and it isn't scrunched in 1024x768. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks fine, we may as well copy it in. Betty Logan (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 00:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrunched table 

message: keeps changing the color code key and the Steve Davis entry in the List_of_world_snooker_champions#Multiple_champions section; being "active" on the tour and compteing in the latest championship are not tautological i.e. you can be active on the circuit and not necessarily compete in the championship. The most recent tournament is the 2016 Championship and Davis competed in it. These alterations are inaccurate and disruptive. Also, as  points out in his edit summary not providing a date makes the information too vague and prone to becoming outdated. Betty Logan (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I know he has retired but that's not particularly relevant to this article or the chart. The color coding indicates which players competed in the latest championship, which Davis did do. Also, by removing the date you make the information less precise: if you remove the date it is not clear to readers if the color coding pertains to 2015, 2016 or even 2017 (as you intend it to). Finally, your edit actually violates WP:CRYSTAL because even though Davis has retired we don't actually actually know for sure if he will compete or not once the 2017 championship comes around. Betty Logan (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  By your logic, when Steve will be not highlighted? After the next tournament? After the next season? After the next ranking event? Retired mean retired as of now. No problem to add the date: Active players (as of 3 May 2016) 95.135.111.186 (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about Steve Davis' career, it is about one particular tournament. It is really very simple: players who contested the most recent championship are highlighted and those that did not are not highlighted. Betty Logan (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Really? And if player retired only from the last edition (due to ilness, for example)...? He will be highlighted or not? 95.135.111.186 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well obviously they would not be highlighted, because this article is not about who is retired or sick but about who competed in the world championship. We can state for a fact who competed in the most recent world championship, but now it predicts who you think will compete in the next world championship. For all you know Steve Davis could have a change of heart and Mark Selby could get run over by a bus. Betty Logan (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No any reason to highlight the retired players. Article don't says now who will compete in 2017. Article says, Active players (as of May 2016) 95.135.111.186 (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is "active" (which is subjective in itself) is inconsequential to this article. What matters is who competed in the championship. Steve Davis competed in the latest championship just as Ronnie O'Sullivan did, just as Mark Selby did, just as John Higgins did. You get the picture. This is not an article about Steve Davis or the tour. It is an article about the world championship and Steve Davis has competed up to the latest one. Betty Logan (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

text: And again, Steve Davis retired already. He is not in the Tour. Read the source:  95.135.111.186 (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I know, but what exactly does that have to do with this article? This article is about who has competed in the world championship, so which world championship has Steve Davis not competed in? If Steve Davis competes in the 2017 world championship would Steve Davis be highlighted or not highlighted under your reconfiguration? Betty Logan (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

text:  The same as for the articles Century break and List of snooker players by number of ranking titles, where retired (or active) players AS OF NOW are highlighted. No reasons why Steve must be "retired" in that articles (read: "Players currently not on the World Snooker Main Tour.") and "not retired" here. 95.135.111.186 (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is a non sequitur as far as this article goes because they are career lists. This article is specifically about the world championship and the highlighting pertains to the most recent championship, not to retirement. Retired players such as Davis and Hendry are still eligible to enter the world championship, so having highlighting for retirement makes little sense in that context. If a retired player enters the world championship then it would not make sense for him to not be highlighted. The only point the highlighting is to show who is competeing in the current world championship, which becomes the most recent one until we know the draw for the next one. Betty Logan (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Main article World Snooker Championship also says: Active players are shown in bold with the same logic as in the abovementioned articles (Steve without bold also). 95.135.111.186 (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it's done another way on another article does not mean we should follow suit here. Will you please answer the question: if Steve Davis (or Stephen Hendry for that matter) enter next year's world championship should they be highlighted or not? Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

text: It must be the same bold/unbold as in the articles World Snooker Championship, Century break and List of snooker players by number of ranking titles etc. 95.135.111.186 (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why won't you answer the question? If Steve Davis enters the tournament next year then should he be highlighted or not? It is a perfectly legitimate question. Betty Logan (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

text: If he will be in the main tour (top 128) as a professional player then "yes". If not in the "128" and plays the exhibitions frames only then "no", I think. 95.135.111.186 (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither Steve Davis nor Stephen hendry have qualified for the main tour in the last few seasons. Hendry is retired but has a wildcard to enter main tour competitions, and Davis also has a wildcard too. Either of these players can effectively choose to enter the world championship even though they are retired, so being "retired" has no bearing their eligibility for the world championship. So, if Davis or Hendry choose to enter the world championship despite being retired should they be highlighted or not? Betty Logan (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

text: In that case, should they be highlighted in the articles World Snooker Championship, Century break and List of snooker players by number of ranking titles? 95.135.111.186 (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive editing? 

message: An editor altered the meaning behind the highlighting in the "multiple champions" table: . Specifically, the highlighting used to indicate that the player will be competing in the next world championship (once the draw is made), is competing in the current world championship once it begins, and competed in the most recent world championship once it ends. And thus the cycle begins again with the next draw. The changes have altered the highlighting to indicate whether a player is now retired or not. The two meanings are not tautological because a retired player can compete in the world championship, and it is possible that a non-retired player does not compete in the world championship (through suspension/illness). Should the highlighting refer to option 1: the player is competing in the current (or most recent) world championship; or option 2: the player is merely "active" on the circuit? I suppose there is also an option 3, which is simply to drop the highlighting altogether. Betty Logan (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Century break and List of snooker players by number of ranking titles are "career" articles so they list the stats in the context of the player's career, while the highlighting at World Snooker Championship should arguably follow the formalism at this article. By changing the meaning of the highlighting the IP has created a practical problem: I repeatedly asked the IP above whether the retired player should be highlighted or not even if they enter the world championship and he refused to answer this very basic question. Obviously, if a retired player continues entering the world championship then they should be highlighted, and he knows this which is which he refuses to answer the question. Betty Logan (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Should player highlighting indicate whether a player has "competed" or is "active"?

message: *Option 1 I support the first option because it is precise and pertains to the tournament itself. The highlighting is traditionally used to add some contemporary relevance to the article i.e. you could see who is competing in the current tournament or competed in the most recent one. It was never used to "guess" who might be at the next one. Whether a player is "retired" (i.e. usually defined as not playing on the main tour) or not is irrelevant as far as our interest in this article goes i.e. if a player enters the world championship they should be highlighted, retired or not. Retired players are not barred from entering the world championship and have done so in the past, so predicting which players will or will not enter the next tournament on the basis of whether they are retired violates WP:CRYSTAL. I believe the highlighting should reflect the entry of the 2016 world championship until the draw is made for the 2017 world championship. Players who do not enter can be de-highlighted then. Betty Logan (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Century break and List of snooker players by number of ranking titles are "career" articles so they list the stats in the context of the player's career, while the highlighting at World Snooker Championship should arguably follow the formalism at this article. By changing the meaning of the highlighting the IP has created a practical problem: I repeatedly asked the IP above whether the retired player should be highlighted or not even if they enter the world championship and he refused to answer this very basic question. Obviously, if a retired player continues entering the world championship then they should be highlighted, and he knows this which is which he refuses to answer the question. Betty Logan (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: see: Talk:World Snooker Championship#Modern Era or Crucible_Era if you'd like to comment. Nigej (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Era or Crucible Era 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Consensus to move page. (non-admin closure)  — YoungForever(talk)  20:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: List of world snooker champions →  – This article is about the winners of the World Snooker Championship, rather than any other world snooker championship, such as the world amateur, world senior or women's world snooker championship. Either the scope of this article - to include other events, or the name should reflect that it is simply for one event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree the article would benefit from a rename but perhaps not the one proposed. The continuity is artificial and there has in effect been three professional world championships. The inaugural one administered by the BACC, the breakaway Professional Matchplay of the 1950s, and the current incarnation that began in 1969, administered by the WPBSA Betty Logan (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that is true - there has been many names for this tournament - however, this title is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME in so much that we know that the World Snooker Championship is the chronology of the event in question. Whilst the pre-1969 events were not named as such, they are clearly denoted as being the same event as the WSC by many RS. I'm not sure of any better title that doesn't specifically state that the events are only this event, and not other such "world titles" in snooker. There are arguments that the World 6-red and World Cup are both world championships in a similar vein. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 14 August 2020 

message: I think it would be useful to know which of the finalists came through qualifying, and possibly even add the seed number of the seeded finalists. --Jameboy (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth noting that seeding/qualifying only started in the 70s, so we wouldn't be able to provide that information for half the list. Betty Logan (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualifiers / seeds 

message: I think that from 1969 to 1971 the Championship was still run by the BACC/B&SCC rather than the PBSA/WPBSA. I'm not sure which source is being used for this information about the organisers in the table. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the BACC was still the organiser for the 1969 event at least. I recall an interview with Reardon when apparently he and Spencer had a showdown with the governing body because they were being barred from pro status, and thus effectively barred from challenging for the WC. They threatened to set up their own association and the following day they got calls offering them membership. Reardon isn't the most reliable source, prone to embellishing, but his story is consistent with the politics of the era. Betty Logan (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In the move discussion above I note that 1969, 1970 and 1971 were hold under a BACC/PBPA partnership.I seem pretty sure of that although I can't recall where I got the info. Betty Logan (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right. Probably just needs a new entry in the key. Any ideas if any of your book sources actually detail this, or if it's an event by event basis. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisers 

message: The references look a bit dodgy to me. I'm sure these can be fixed fairly easily. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  References