Talk:Neil Robertson

Resolved

 – Article was corrected and no comment since May 2010 suggest consenus. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Robertson is NOT the first Australian to win the title. Horace Lindrum won it in 1952. Robertson is the first Australian to win it at the Crucible. Xowets (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Due to a disagreement with the Billiards Association and Control Council, Lindrum and McConachy were the only players to compete, with most professional players playing in the World Matchplay championship instead. As a result, Lindrum's title win is often ignored, with Cliff Thorburn (Can), Ken Doherty (Ire) and Neil Robertson (Aus) usually regarded as the only non-British World Champions." (from List of world snooker champions). This fact is well-sourced. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Or you could keep it in and add/change the wording to. 1st offical Aussie world Champ, after Lindrum's unoffical win in 1952. Keeps everyone happy and the reader more informed. But i would like to see a source for the unoffical claim KnowIG 00:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What you referenced there doesn't even prove your point. 'Often ignored' and 'not officially recognised' are not the same thing at all. Therefore, whether you like it or not, Horace Lindrum IS the official World Professional Snooker Champion for 1952. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.128.84 (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've appended "in the modern era". While Horace Lindrum's win is often discounted it is factually incorrect to state Robertson is the first Australian ever to win it. Similarly with Hendry, he is often regarded as holding the record for championship wins but in actual fact Joe davis, but most snooker commentators only tend to go by the records of the modern era these days. Betty Logan (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The reference says first Australian world champion, don't remove references, and sections without explanation. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't abide by Betty Logan's logic (about the commentators only mentioning the modern game) because all tournament they've been talking about how close Eddie Charlton was to winning it, and his chances came before the 'modern' era of the Embassy sponsorship and the Crucible.195.195.128.84 (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Two of Eddie Charton's finals came in the modern era. Betty Logan (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ignore that, I wrote it thinking you were agreeing with Armbrust.195.195.128.84 (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As an aside his mother in her listing as the secretary of his limited company lists her nationality as British. Might he have an Australian father and a British mother albeit he was obviously born in Australia, brought up there and identifies as Australian. 2A02:8084:255D:9380:400F:8F63:9355:4494 (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This still seems to be confusing some people. When the BBC refer to "overseas" players, they mean outside of the UK. Ireland is split into two parts - Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the UK while the Republic is not, and the players from the Republic are classed as "overseas" players in the BBC terminology. In that sense Ken Doherty from the Republic is classed as an "overseas" while Alex Higgins and Dennis Taylor are not, despite then having to cross the same sea to compete.

In the modern game since 1969 (when the knock-out format was introduced and all pros were eligible to enter) there have been three overseas winners i.e. three non-UK champions: Thorburn, Doherty and now Robertson. Since Snooker is considered a British and Irish game, sometimes when referring to international winners "international" usually refers to players outside of the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

When pundits and journalists refer to Robertson as the third overseas/foreigner/international player they mean non-UK, and if they refer to him as the second overseas/foreigner/international player they are obviously excluding Ireland from that category. It's important to be clear on this and perhaps avoid confusing terminology.

Resricting the context to the modern game avoids the Horace Lindrum issue. In regards to this, while the WPBSA generally ignores his win it is important to note that this is a point of view and the fact remains he did win it - much of the Australian press for instance are reporting that Robertson is the second Australian to win it. It is not our place to adopt a stance on this issue, but to clearly report the facts as they are: Lindrum won it, but due to a dispute between the players and the governing body an alternative tournament was established and Lindrum's win is often disregarded by other professionals. Betty Logan (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Whatever the Australian media may say, snooker players here in Australia are quite content with the "modern era" qualifier that excludes Horace Lindrum. Anyone who knows anything about the game here has a lot of respect for Lindrum as a player, but knows that his world title was almost embarrassingly trivial under the circumstances. 138.217.153.239 (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

While Armbrust has provided a citation to the use of "Melbourne Machine" and "Aussie Ace" [note it was "ace" in the citation], these are not nickname but merely ephermeral titles invented either by a journalist or by an online website looking business. "The Thunder from Down Under" is Robertason's widely known nickname and the only one for this article. bigpad (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Melbourne Machine is certainly a nickname - one of the previous MCs used to introduce him using it. I have a World Snooker reference so I will add that in. Betty Logan (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I say the latest source for "Aussie Ace" doesn't cut it as well. It simply uses the phrase as a description not as a reference to their nickname. We might as well say Ronnie O'Sullivan's nickname is "Controversial Snooker Player". Not to mention the possible unreliable source as a bookmaker. Christopher Connor (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There are many sources for this nickname: World Snooker, Daily Record, This Is Bristol, The Star, Highland News, Entrepreneur (magazine) and Daily Record (again). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Aussie ace" is the same as saying "Southampton star" or "Belfast battler!" It is *not a nickname - the "a" in "ace" is lowercase, for a start, in all the articles you cited. "Melbourne Machine" is ok, as it's a genuine citation, if only one World Snooker. Armbrust - please don't be re-inserting Aussie Ace. Nicknames is a big weakness in Wikipedia, unfortunately. bigpad (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The article contains a number of contradictions in the use of "season" and "year". The "Performance and rankings timeline" table lists seasons while "Tournament finals" lists years. Why don't you replace 'year' with 'season' in the latter, to make the information clear? From the info. in the second table, it was perfectly understandablwe why I wrote Robertson had won a ranking event title every year since 2006 bigpad (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Th current BBC reference that's being warred over actually uses the words "British Isles" and not "United Kingdom and Ireland". So in fact we should, and I will, correct the text. We are often told the text does not match the reference, and that we must adhere to what the reference says, so I hope we have agreement here; using words other than those in the reference is original research. LevenBoy (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to clariify the situation. British Isles was the original usage, and remained until this edit . LevenBoy (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you please clarify exactly which source and quote the text? I've been over the source twice at the end of the disputed sentence and see only the UK and Ireland mentioned. I would prefer to use the UK and Ireland wording since it is more specific but I agree that the text should follow the source, so if the "British Isles" terminology is used I don't really have a problem. Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The 28-year-old is the first player from outside the UK and Ireland to win the world title since Canadian Cliff Thorburn's victory in 1980. That's what the source states.Mo ainm~Talk 20:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I added the dead link tag, and used the link for UK and Ireland. Less contentious.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No the source doesn't state that. Here's the source . "UK and Ireland" is too controversial and is clear POV when the source says otherwise, so I'm restoring the more accurate version. LevenBoy (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

And also, as I already pointed out, the original edit used British Isles until some ip pushed POV and changed it to UK&I even though it wasn't backed up by the ref. LevenBoy (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OK so we have two BBC sources using the two alternative wordings. That means it is down to consensus among editors. I agree with Betty Logan that we should use a precise term given the option rather than an ambiguous/controversial term. From the look of the above that is the majority view. --Snowded ^TALK 20:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, study both sources in detail, and the words in the article, and you will see that I am right. Facts; the source I'm using matches the words in the text precisely. The source others are using does not. That source is talking about something completely different - yes, it's confusing to start with but check it out. LevenBoy (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Betty Logan and Snowded. The preciser term is better. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 20:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

But it doesn't match the source  ! ! ! LevenBoy (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The other source says "the first player from outside the UK and Ireland" so both phrases conform with sources. My comments above stand. You really would have more credibility if you edited on any other subject., SPAs to my mind are the cause of too much conflict on wikipedia. --Snowded ^TALK 20:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you even read the source Levin Boy it is a couple of lines up in blue you cant miss it, or are you just going to edit war? Mo ainm~Talk 20:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

For heavens sake read it, won't you! The source you are going on about makes no mention of being the first player in ranking tournaments, it's about Cliff Thorburn or something. It is a source about something else. LevenBoy (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)SPA account what do you expect? Now Levin is up to 3rr we can expect the alter ego of lemon monday to appear to take up the edit warring cudgel. --Snowded ^TALK 20:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Robertson, who rises to number two in the world, had trailed 5-3 but having edged ahead, kept his nose in front despite not being at his best. He sunk the last ball of a tense, error-ridden final at 0054 BST. The 28-year-old is the first player from outside the UK and Ireland to win the world title since Canadian Cliff Thorburn's victory in 1980. Does the source not say that? can you really not read? Mo ainm~Talk 21:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

CURRENT TEXT - The 28-year-old is the first player from outside the UK and Ireland to win the world title since Canadian Cliff Thorburn's victory in 1980.The 28-year-old is the first player from outside the UK and Ireland to win the world title since Canadian Cliff Thorburn's victory in 1980.

BBC SOURCE - His fourth title makes Robertson the most successful player from outside the British Isles in ranking tournaments.

Now Snowded, tell me I'm wrong, and if you just once more refer to me as an SPA or make any more insinuations of sock puppetry I'll report it. LevenBoy (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You are a SPA LevenBoy and you edit in tandem with another SPA LemonMonday, so I think alter ego is a fair enough phrase. Feel free to report this if you want, and feel your own conduct can bear investigation --Snowded ^TALK 21:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Mo aim, your source is something else, about Cliff Thorburn. LevenBoy (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Again have you read the source? Mo ainm~Talk 21:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

And BTW the current text is this: "There he defeated 2006 champion Graeme Dott 18–13 to become only the third player from outside of the UK (and only the second from outside of UK and Ireland), and the first Australian, to become world champion in the modern era of the game" Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 21:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

this says UK and Ireland. This link is dead and was reverted by LevenBoy which is just a blind revert. They then another blind revert. Here is another blind revert. Please do not disrupt the page to make a point. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

:Yes, your source says The 28-year-old is the first player from outside the UK and Ireland to win the world title since Canadian Cliff Thorburn's victory in 1980.. So tell me, how does that equate to the current edit-warred-out text of His fourth title makes Robertson the most successful player from outside the British Isles in ranking tournaments. ? LevenBoy (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In one of the edits, the correct source was replaced by a wrong source (which used a different terminology), and has still not been corrected. This explains the above confusion over the sources and wording. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"But Robertson, who has yet to win a world title, scoffed at suggestions he could now be considered the game's most successful player from outside Britain and Ireland." That is in your source LevenBoy? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The source was changed by Levin Boy here Mo ainm~Talk 21:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You're a flat out liar Mo ainm! Go back to this edit which was before User:LemonMonday made his edit which started all this off. Now, does the text being referenced match the second paragraph of the source? If you look carefully you'll see that it does - EXCEPT - in the source it says British Isles and in the text it says UK and Ireland. So who's right here. Also, as I pointed out above, originally the text said British Isles until back in May last year an ip changed it without discussion to UK & I. LevenBoy (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

LevenBoy, the source you want to cite also says "But Robertson, who has yet to win a world title, scoffed at suggestions he could now be considered the game's most successful player from outside Britain and Ireland." That is in your source LevenBoy? So even your source is conflicting using both terms. You choose to only use one of them. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 I'll remind you that calling another editor a liar is a personal attack, do you deny the edit made in the diff I provided? Also as an SPA it's great the way you cherry pick what you want from the source you and your SPA friend edit warred to insert namely most successful player from outside Britain and Ireland. Mo ainm~Talk 21:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Domer - Quite right, but in the second paragrpah it says His fourth title makes Robertson the most successful player from outside the British Isles in ranking tournaments. and that is the text being referenced. Only problem is, in the article it says His fourth title makes Robertson the most successful player from outside the UK and Ireland in ranking tournaments. So why is the source difeerent from the text? LevenBoy (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Spot on LevenBoy. A source is being used to back up a statement, but the words of the source used in the article have been amended to support politcal POV. The users above are quite well aware that you are right on this point but are being deliberately obstructive by throwing in red herrings all over the place. This one couldn't be more clear. LemonMonday Talk 07:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Tweedledum and Tweeedledee in their Disney incarnation I see, maybe the odd Byrom manifestation would avoid the inevitable conclusion. Otherwise sources support both phrases so lets use the least controversial version shall we. --Snowded ^TALK 08:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No, let's fix the text of the article so that it matches the source. I can't wait fo the next time that you whine about a source not saying British Isles when the text does. LemonMonday Talk 19:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Can this issue please be resolved here without continuous edit warring? I've restored to what seems the 'pre-battle' state. RashersTierney (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The text has both versions and as far as I can see all editors (5/6 depending on how you count reverts on the article) are agreed bar the twin headed SPAs of LemonMonday and LevenMonday and the latest Irvine22 sock --Snowded ^TALK 06:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, you're a fraud. You have us believe you're some sort of academic, but you can't even write without demonstrating an almost dyslexic confusion. You still refuse to answer the key point - why should the words of a source be changed to fit political POV? As to "consensus", don't forget that the majority of editors here are effectively a single Irish nationalist voice talking and editing as one. LemonMonday Talk 06:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding a failure to apply WP:AGF to edit warring are we? The sources support both wordings LemonBoy so it is down to consensus. Oh, I am partially dyslexic by the way, so I don't regard that term as a form of abuse. --Snowded ^TALK 06:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me, the majority wishs to use UK and Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No, they simply don't. The words used are almost a direct quote from the source, except of course BI has been replaced by UK&I. I've got to say this, regardless of AGF, NPA or anything else, but you've shown yourself to be a duplicitous manipulator, and those who suspected this all along can use this current example as clear evidence. LemonMonday Talk 06:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

-GoodDay, your interjections are worthless and irritating, just go away. They also often result - as here - in edit conflicts. LemonMonday Talk 06:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR, begs to differ on who's being the irritant. GoodDay (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll find I'm not in breach of it, but hold on there: think about Snowded - is he also an edit warrior? Yes, I hear you say from across the ocean. Quite right. If you want to complain abot warring compalin about him as well. Have you noticed there's always edit warring and aggravation around all hiw WIkipedia interests. As for this snooker one, he reverts just the same as the Irish nats and everyone else. LemonMonday Talk 06:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You know Lemon, your comments are increasingly reminiscent of serial sock Irvine22 who did operate through proxies as I remember it before he was finally blocked. You have gone to 3rr and two separate occasions on this article as has your alter ego. GIven the clear consensus it could be argued that such behaviour is vandalism. You are now engaged in the standard tactic adopted by you and LevinBoy which is to create a lot of noise in the hope that any reviewing admin will cry a plague on both your houses. It has worked before, it may work this time but sooner or later such behaviour catches up on you --Snowded ^TALK 06:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Make that another editor who agrees with the consensus on the wording of the reference. Bjmullan (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

But Mullan, you're shit hot on references. As far as you're concerned source and text must match. Even a casual glance at your edit history throws up many instances of "not what the reference says", so how do you explain your position here? And Snowdud, please learn to spell. LemonMonday Talk 09:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, just looking for consensus, I don't quite see it. Discounting Mullan and GoodDay we have Domer, Mo ainm and Snowdud wanting to disregard the true wording of the source, and then me and LevenBoy in favour of using the actual words of the source. Armbrush has left the debate (see his talk page) and the other contributors appear just to want to use the source correctly but haven't looked at it in detail. So -- no consensus there then. LemonMonday Talk 09:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

LemonMonday, I do you the courtesy of using you full Wikipedia name, please do me the same. I think I have requested this from you in the past. Bjmullan (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Re LemonMonday: Even if I left the debate my opinion remain. And if there is no consensus, then it should remain UK&I, because at the beginning this was used. No consensus to change it. My request to fully protect this page was accepted for 2 weeks. (My last comment on this debate) Regards, Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is clearly to leave it as "UK and Ireland". And, as a long-standing contributor to snooker articles, that is fine by me. bigpad (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

See comments at User talk:Ged UK. LemonMonday Talk 20:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, leave it as UK and Ireland as no consensus to change it. bigpad (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Right across Wikipedia, wherever there's an issue with British Isles, you will never, ever, get any sort of consensus. What you will get are various groups weighing in with their POV. On this occasion the article has attracted a substantial contingent from the Irish nationalist group and it therefore appears to be a consensus, but it isn't. What we do have though, is a source that says one thing and a text that says something different, so are you saying you think there's a consensus to disregard the wording of the source? LemonMonday Talk 12:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Argument over LemonMonday, you are not raising any new points and the consensus is very very clear --Snowded ^TALK 13:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You, Snowded, have not answered one single point that's been raised, so I invite you to look at the explanation I gave over at User:Ged UK's page and give me your opinion on the facts as presented. LemonMonday Talk 13:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked over the 2 sources-in-question (numbers 6 & 7), the former uses British Isles & the latter UK and Ireland. I'm gonna break my neutrality here & recommend using British Isles next to source #6; UK and Ireland next to source #7. Another option would be to dump one of the 2 sources. GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, thank you for giving an opinion. However, it's worth bearing in mind that the two sources relate to entirely different matters, so it's not appropriate to drop one or the other (and I think you mean the other way round, surely - UK&I next to source #7 and BI next to source #6). LemonMonday Talk 14:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've protected this page so that the article remains stable whilst consensus is formed. You may find that a request for comment, third opinion or other dispute resolution mechanisms helpful here.

However, consider this fair warning; incivility will not be tolerated. GedUK  11:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is already well in favor of keeping it as "UK & Ireland". That's what the original source said and that's how the article remained since May 6, 2010. The edit was introduced as "UK and Ireland", briefly changed to "British Isles", then to "Britain and Ireland" and finally back to "UK and Ireland". The recent change was made despite LemonMonday's telling another editor not to add or remove the term "British Isles" without prior agreement on a special page that had to be created because of disruption from multiple parties. That's add or remove; for their first ever edits to this article the term was added, and there was no prior agreement or attempt to discuss it there or on the talk page of this article. This has been a long-term problem especially for both LemonMonday and LevenBoy who have very few edits outside of this issue; it is extremely disruptive and stretches across scores of articles which are routinely protected after things like this. Anyone familiar with WP:BISE will tell you this. This article is merely the latest target. There is a 3RR thread just rotting away over there because everyone is sick to death of dealing with this. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 12:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We have 2 sources for BI, 1 for UK&I. And we have a bunch of people edit warring over which one to use, citing their own POV's, and the local consensus (derived by not so local editors arriving as part of the usual not so disinterested tag team, who have as much interest in this article as Lemon Monday ever did). As fucking useless as BISE was at handling this tedious bollocks, even it was pretty clear what happened in these cases, or at least the admins were. Anyway, BISE is irrelevant, the admins who took it under their wing eventually fucked off due to it being swamped under a tide of TE, game playing, fake 'civility' and faux offence, all of the sort you see above, and Lemon Monday has been sutably dispatched as a content opponent using the more traditional methods, so everyone can go on their way, suitably reassured that this article is now 'neutral'. Pfft. MickMacNee (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

An initial promoter of BISE, I concluded months ago, that it was a failure. In retrospect, I seen it as having morphed into a vehicle to promote either PoV. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could you add this "| Century break = 159", to the infobox. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 11:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone remove the statement that he is the current world champion? John Higgins won the 2011 championship. It would be pretty lame to leave such a glaring error in the intro for three more days because of the squabble above. Alex Middleton (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  12:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The article mentions that he became a top 32 player in the 2004/5 season, he didn't it was the 2005/06 season that became a top 32 player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.3 (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neil Robertson (snooker player). 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://www.globalsnookercentre.co.uk/files/Results/2006-7/2007-888-crucible.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I want to rename this page "Neil Robertson" over the existing disambiguation page which only has two entries, one of which is a little-known mathematician who is getting barely 10 views per day. The snooker player is clearly the primary topic, with well over 1,000 views per day. This suggestion was brought up on the dab talk page several months ago by KnightMove but I've only just come across it myself. So if no-one objects, I can go ahead and do it in the next day or two (unless anyone else beats me to it). Cheers. Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I've just realised that I won't be able to move the page myself because the target page already exists as the dab, so it's not straightforward. I've put in a page move request – please visit and contest if you disagree. Thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done

He acknowledged that he was addicted to video games (to escape from the pressure) and that it seriously impacted his performance after his first World Championship: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/apr/21/neil-robertson-says-video-game-addiction-damaged-snooker-career El Pantera (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is already in the prose. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Rodney Baggins, I hope you don't mind me pinging you again. I have been working to get this article up to GA standard the last fortnight, nearly there (I think). I have done a full source review. I would appreciate your thoughts on the wording of the 2010 Crucible win. The current paragraph looks quite clunky and has been hotly debated in the past. I think something like First non UK and Ireland winner since Cliff Thorburn and first Australian to win at the Worlds since it moved to the Crucible might be cleaner. The BBC reference actually calls him the first Australian winner, others use the not credible line about Lindrum. I'd like a second opinion if you have one. I am also concerned that the 2016 photoshoot image has no source/author - is this allowed? Thankyou. Canary757 (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, no problem, I see that you have been doing a lot of work on this article, great stuff! That photo is probably OK for GA, but it would definitely be flagged at FA as requiring a source. I can see that it's been in the article for several years and no one has challenged it, so it's not a big problem at the moment. I'll take a look at the 2010 Crucible win today, plus a general check over the article. Regards, Rodney Baggins .talk. 06:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I have reworded the 2010 bit but please suggest/make any changes if appropriate. Curiously that photo is on his website with a credit to wikipedia! Canary757 (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I've had a go at rewording the 2010 WC bit – I thought it easier to make the edit myself than trying to describe it here, but you can always revert me if you don't agree. I think it's OK to be bold and state up front that he was the first Oz WC because that narrative is verified by the BBC source (which doesn't even mention Lindrum). It would be preferable to back it up with at least one other source that definitively calls him the first Oz WC, if you can find any. The Lindrum bit is well sourced, and it's good that it's included for transparency. I was thinking it might be best as a footnote rather than in the main prose, but I'm not so sure now. It's probably best to keep it prominent so we can't be accused of hiding it away. I didn't like the Crucible/modern era bit. As the "modern era" began in 1969 and the "Crucible era" began in 1977, I think mentioning them both in one sentence is a bit confusing. I don't think you need to qualify his first-Oz-WC status at all, just be bold and give him credit where it's due. Rodney Baggins .talk. 22:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the crucible/modern era bit. TNT Sports call him the only Australian world champion here . Independent just stick to Thorburn line ABC call him the second player from Australia to be world champion here The fact that ABC call him the seoond winner still makes me a little uncomfortable with putting him as the first Aussie to win. Will have another think about this later. Thanks Canary757 (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the safest way to deal with a situation like this is to clearly attribute any contentious statements to sources rather than presenting them as fact, e.g. "Robertson was the first player from outside the UK and Ireland to win the title since Canada's Cliff Thorburn in 1980.[fact, easily sourced] He is also credited by many sources as being the first Australian to become world snooker champion.[cite specific sources that make this claim] However, Australian snooker player Horace Lindrum is recorded as having won the world title in 1952, but he is not widely regarded as a credible world champion because the sport's leading players staged a boycott that year.[fact, easily sourced]"
You just need to decide which sources are most appropriate. Rodney Baggins .talk. 14:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

SBS also list him as the second winner. The majority of sources do not outright name him as the first. so how about roughly...... First outside UK/Ireland since CT in 1980.(ref) Record books list him as the 2nd Aus WC after HL in 1952, but the credibility of Lindrum's victory has been widely challenged due to a player boycott (ref, ref, ref) therefore NR is sometimes referred to as the first Aus WC. (ref,ref)? Also I assume its essential to cover all this? 1st Aussie winner at the Crucible as some broadsheets did and leave it at that.Canary757 (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Also I assume its essential to cover all this? If we want the article to be accurate, yes. I think your slight reordering is better, so I say give it a go. I see you've already nominated this for GA review. That's fine, as you can see it takes a while for these things to get picked up. Some wait weeks, even months before they get reviewed! Rodney Baggins .talk. 16:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

There are plenty of websites that reference Robertson's Warhammer gaming hobby, including painting miniatures. Canary757 has removed the latter from my edit on the basis that it's not referenced in the particularly article I chose to cite (actually, it is - it says he won best painted army). But all I was trying to do was to include Warhammer in the personal life section as I think it's significant and was previously an omission.

I'm not going to get into an argument on this because it's really not a big deal - but my suggestion is to include this, and the miniatures painting too. Grapevine73 (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Grapevine73, Thanks for your feedback. I have expanded the details regarding his Warhammer participation and painting miniatures, as you are right, it deserves inclusion in the article. I have added an additional source which gives extra clarity regarding his hobby of painting figures. Canary757 (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks Grapevine73 (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

GA review

Passed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

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 review is transcluded from Talk:Neil Robertson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Canary757 (talk · contribs) 13:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 10:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: I have made a handful of edits to the page; three minor script runs and the addition of an image. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @BennyOnTheLoose. I think I have done all these now, but the IP has already reverted the Masters Q event. I will look into how to file a socketpuppet investigation but it may take a while to put it all together. Canary757 (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on the article. As I understand it, the interventions by a single banned user, which happends to be against consensus at WP:SNOOKER, does not constitute a lack of stability. I think there's a good balance between broadness and depth, for GA standards, in the article. Only a couple of points, which I've just added, left. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Copyvio Check

• Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows 20%. These matches are names and phrases acceptable per WP:LIMITED such as "the semi-finals of the World Championship for the first time" and "four players to have compiled over".

Sources

• Sources are all appropriate. Queries listed below have been resolved.

Images

• All OK to use and relevant. I amended one caption, please check it. Optionally, ALT text could be added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)I've added alt= to the 2024 image and trimmed it's caption.

1.1 Early career

• MOS:IBP says that, apart from some listed exceptions, "an article should remain complete with its infobox ignored." The birth info in the infobox should be repeated either here, or as an expansion to what's already under Personal Life. This would also mean that one citation can be removed from he infobox in the spirit of MOS:INFOBOXCITE.  Done
• Spot check on "Robertson first played snooker aged 11 at the pool club owned by his family" - no issues.
• Optional - if there is a source, add on what basis "His professional career began in the 1998‍–‍99 season," I found information on this phase of his career quite difficult to get but I have added three unsuccessful attempts to qualify for the World Championships as for the first few years these are the only tournaments listed on his epic snooker.org career results page.
• Spot check on ""I didn’t enjoy living there at all. It was completely different to Melbourne, so I really struggled."" - no issues
• Could link "main tour" to World Snooker Tour Done
• "rejoining the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA) main tour." - I think it is really World Snooker's tour rather than the WPBSA's. The WBPSA is the second-largest shareholder in World Snooker/WST after Matchroom. If you agree, then link can be moved to the later mention of WPBSA. Good spot
• "he made it through qualifying to book a place at the 2004 Masters" - true but maybe specify that he won that tournament. Done
• Spot check on "Robertson's first ranking event quarter-final came at the 2004 European Open" -no issues.(WBPSA source has "European Masters" but the BBC one has "European Open") Nice to see this sort of stat with a supporting source, this isn't always the case!

1.2 Breakthrough: first ranking title/2009–2013

• "During the 2006–07 season, Robertson secured his maiden ranking title win at the 2006 Grand Prix." needs a citation after it as the next (BBC) citation only covers up to him reaching the final. Done
• Similarly with "He then made it to the final of the Welsh Open." Done
• "finalist Andrew Higginson" - "finalist" feels a bit redundant to me, but it can be kept if you prefer. Done
• Spot check on "and he finished the season ranked tenth" - no issues.
• Spot check on "Robertson started the 2011‍–‍12 season" - I don't think the cited source confirms this, unless I missed it. You could add his snooker.org career history page as a ref.reworded
• Spot check on " his home tournament," - no issues
• "He exacted revenge for his defeat" - doesn't feel like the right tone for a Wikipedia article. Donex2
• Six consecutive paragraphs start with "Robertson". I suggest varying these. Done
• Spot check on "In October 2009, Robertson clinched the Grand Prix trophy in Glasgow with a 9–4 win over Ding. It was the first ranking event final since 1985 to feature two overseas players. He compiled his 100th career century during the event. Robertson's fourth ranking title made him the most prolific player from outside the UK and Ireland in terms of career ranking-event victories." - no issues
• Spot check on "Horace Lindrum who won in 1952 is not widely regarded as a credible world champion because the sport's leading players staged a boycott that year" - no issues
• "Squandered a 4–0 lead" - "squandered" made me pause, but it's ok, I think. Done
• "minor-ranking" could do with an explanation or link, probably to List of minor-ranking tournaments Done
• Spot check on " In 2013, Robertson was named in the World Snooker Tour Hall of Fame" - no issues
• "the PTC Order of Merit" - might be useful to briefly explain this. Done

1.4 2013–2017

• Five consecutive paragraphs start with "Robertson". I suggest varying these. Done
• "his home tournament," - this was mentioned a few paragraphs previously so could probably be omitted here. Done
• Spot check on "becoming the eighth player to win all three Triple Crown events. Robertson also had the distinction of becoming the first player from outside the United Kingdom to have achieved this feat." - no issues
• "Robertson extended his season's centuries to 99" - I think could do with a slight rephrasing to include something like "number of" or "total of", even though there is context in the previous para. Done
• Spot check on "tally for the season at 103" - no issues
• Optional - in "He ended the campaign as the world number three". Works with "Campaign" either being for World Championship or season, but consider using "season" instead, as not everyone will know the world championship is the final event of the season. Done
• Duplicate link on Australian Goldfields Open in this section, which I think I missed earlier.I can't see this one. The duplink highlighter tool is showing all clear?
• Spot check on "Robertson, reclaimed the world number one spot afterwards" - no issues with verification, but doesn't need the comma. Done
• "marking the first time O'Sullivan had been eliminated at that stage of the event after ten previous wins" - issue is in the source as well, but this reads to me like O'Sullivan had won the tournament ten successive times. Done
• Consider amending "a Crucible record of eight centuries" to refer to world championship instead; Crucible is mentioned and linked earlier but general readers may not get the term "Crucible record" Done
• "He missed a black on a break of 94" - add a cuegloss link to black ball Done
• Spot check on "It was the first final in the event not to feature a player from the United Kingdom" - no issues

1.5 2017–2021

• "celebrated victory" - maybe this is just used as a variant on "won", and the source does have "Pumping his fist.. [he] was delighted with his victory." But this doesn't feel like quite the right tone for an article. This is a point I will easily concede on, though. Done
• Spot check on "mistakenly setting his Satnav to Barnsley, Gloucestershire, instead of the Barnsley Metrodome in Yorkshire, 170 miles away" - no issues
• "he fell short" feels a bit like commentary Done
• "In the first half of the" - "first half" feels unnecessary to me Done
• Spot check on "Robertson was the runner up at the English Open, losing 8–9 to Trump," - no issues.

1.6 2021–present

• Two paras start with "In the second half of the season". The first could be linked to the season in question. Perhaps the second could be combined with the preceding paragraph? Done
• Spot check on "Aged 39, Robertson revealed that becoming a multiple world champion was his "last box to tick". He explained that NFL player Tom Brady was someone he looked up to, saying: "It's not too late to become a three or four-time world champion. Look at Tom Brady, he is a massive inspiration." - original quote has " last thing to tick", otherwise OK. Done
• SPot check on "his streak of winning at least one title each calendar year since 2006 had ended"
• Spot check on "he received a late call-up after O'Sullivan withdrew from the tournament." - no issues
• "the Home Nations Series Order of Merit" - might be useful to briefly explain this. Done
• Spot check on "He whitewashed Bingham 10‍–‍0 in the final, becoming the first player to ever win two multi-session finals without losing a frame" - no issues
• "Robertson revealed that he had started working with a sports psychologist after failing to qualify for the previous edition of the event. He credited this as a contributing factor to his improved ranking for the year" - no issues with verification but "revealed" should be amended per MOS:SAID Done
• Spot check on the WPBSA announced that Robertson had joined the Players Board of the association" - no issues. Consider adding a brief description of what the Players Board is. I think that association should start with a capital here as it is the specific Association being referenced, but I'm not 100% sure. Done

Personal life

• Five of the short paragraphs start with "Robertson". I suggest varying these. Done
• "He is now based in Cambridge, England," - source is from 2007, you could probably move this to the end of the sentence next to the source from 2020 that mentions Cambridge. Still might merit an "As of 2020..." as its a few years old.
• "his Norwegian wife Mille"/"Fjelldal had been due to give birth to the couple's first child while Robertson was playing in the 2010 World Snooker Championship final"- the cited sources don't state her surname. Sources for her full name are available, e.g. here.Removed. I don't think Mille's surname is necessary to include tbh.
• " In 2017, he was reportedly friends with former England and Chelsea footballer John Terry" seems a bit trivial, but it could be retained.Agreed, removed
• Spot check on "On 26 January 2025, Robertson was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia." - no issues. Perhaps add that it is the highest civilian honour that can be bestowed by the Australian government, and was "for services to snooker"? Done

Performance and rankings timeline

• I prefer to see these and the notes appended to them referenced, but many reviewers have passed snooker player articles as GA without the table being referenced, so I won't insist on it. I've added a snooker.org reference with same wording as on Mark Selby.
• I spotted checked three of the QF's and they were fine.

Career finals

• IMO the Masters Qualifying Event should be removed from the Non-ranking finals table. I believe this was added by a banned user. Agreed but I note that Mark Selby and Stuart Bingham still have this event in their charts. Keeping it is not a blocker to GA status. Players like Robertson, Selby and Bingham have won so much that this one is not prominent. Adding a qualifying event win on an article like Albert Brown (snooker player) or even Alec Brown (snooker player) feels undue to me, though. Done
• It's a pain to do, especially to keep name sortable, but I think the flagicons need to be replaced with flagathlete per MOS:FLAG I will read up on MOS:FLAG but I observe that many snooker GA artices such as Steve Davis, Mark Selby, Kyren Wilson, Stuart Bingham, Zhao Xintong and Shaun Murphy do not have ENG as well as the flag whereas some players like Jimmy White and Terry Griffiths do?

• I'm open to discuss this. I see that I was the reviewer for the Selby and Wilson articles back in 2020. I wasn't the reviewer for the Zhao article but I did raise some issues on the talk page under the heading "GA" including "I think that flagathlete rather than flagicon should be used." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC) Thank you for your edits on this.

• Spot checks on 2025 Saudi Arabia Snooker Masters, 2012 Gdynia Open, 2015 Champion of Champions - no issues
• Amateur titles: to avoid "floating references", you could have an intro sentence and the refs after that. (A bit like the Century breaks section at 2025 World Snooker Championship)

Other comments

• There are a couple of duplicate links. I think the one to Mark Selby in 2013–2017, and the second one to Home Nations in 2021–present should be removed. Same with Melbourne and Cambridge in Personal life. The others seem useful to readers. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)  Done

Okay, on MOS:FLAG it states Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name, especially in a list or table. Are you happy with the Ranking events chart where I have added flagathlete on first usage? This can be duplicated in the other charts. Canary757 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Before seeing this, I ran a script on the top table. I don't think the sorting works in a sensible on the other tables, does it? I can amend these if you're OK with that. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC) Thank you. Sounds like a good idea.

• I ran a couple of scripts and made some minor changes. Please review and let me know if you disagree with any.

Infobox and Lead

• The flag can probably be removed. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG  Done
• His middle name is not cited in the article.Removed for now. I kept finding mirror sites
• "plays left-handed" is not cited in the article. Done
• "He is a member of the World Snooker Tour Hall of Fame and plays left-handed." reads a bit oddly to me but not oddly enough to block GA status. (It would be a nice addition to have something about his style of of play in the body of the article, but it can be tricky to find sources with that sort of content.)I found a couple of sources to get going but good ones appear limited.

Hi BennyOnTheLoose, thanks for taking on this chunky article. I look forward to your full review. Out of interest, do you think the quote from the 2025 Saudi win is a bit too based on recency bias? I can see it dating maybe? Also, is the 2008 World Mixed Doubles Championship win with Reanne Evans (in the mixed team chart) correctly titled as this page World Mixed Doubles (snooker) doesn't mention it? Thanks. Canary757 (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the 2025 Saudi coverage is proportionate. I'll check, but I think the mixed doubles was the WWS version. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I can't find a source for his middle name. I tried WST, WPBSA, Grove Leisure, official site......so omitted for now. Is there anything else I need to do? Thanks. Canary757 (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

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.

I understand that the consensus of wikiproject snooker is not to include this event under titles. Please debate this here or on wikiproject snooker. Canary757 (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2026 (UTC)