Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Retired vs Former
An anonymous IP editor has been taking issue with the use of "retired" in article leads for players who have been clearly announced as having "retired" (this was initially started by another editor). For example, after I changed "former" in Ken Doherty to be "retired", it was repeatedly reverted, and then my attempt to apply that consistently to other player pages [eg Dominic Dale] were similarly reverted. The user has chosen not to discuss this, and seems to be insistent on removing the use of "retired" from such pages, even though we already have a precedent for doing this on various articles like Steve Davis and Alan McManus.
Personally, if a player directly confirms they are "retiring" from snooker, we should be using that in the lead over "former", which should be used to denote players who just naturally fell off tour, rather than because they made a decision to "retire". However I'm not interested in edit warring, hence this talkpage post.
@Alavense @HurricaneHiggins @Lee Vilenski @Nigej @Andygray110 your thoughts are welcome and appreciated on this issue.
EDIT: I just noticed the topic above mine and spot that the IP editor who was reverting my edits appears to share similarities in the IP address highlighted in the aforementioned topic. Would suggest its the same individual who persists in edit warring with editors for no reason. -- CitroenLover (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- Honestly, a "former" player (or a former professional player) is always going to be correct. A retired player is only going to be correct when someone says they won't come back. I don't know why we'd change it if it says former. Retired also suggests that someone is no longer working. Which, in the case of a lot of players is not true. Ken Doherty for instance, isn't even a retired player, simply a retired professional player. He's still playing on the seniors tour and as a commentator. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski good point, although it'd be good to have consistency (technically Steve Davis is a pundit/commentator, just like Ken, but Steve isn't playing professional snooker). For me, if a player actively states they are retiring from professional snooker, then to say "is a <nationality> retired professional snooker player" would be just as accurate as "is a <nationality> former professional snooker player", but ultimately I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't going to get done in for revert warring with an IP editor who is clearly block-evading (per message below). --CitroenLover (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd agree it is as accurate. So why use it over just saying former. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:57, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
- I do think the context matters. Duane Jones is described as a former professional because he lost his tour card at the end of the season, but he is 33 years old and is likely to continue trying to get back on the main tour. Doherty issued a formal retirement announcement, making his status more definitive than Jones's. Regardless, we do describe figures including Rex Williams, Cliff Thorburn, Steve Davis, and Joe Perry as "retired" while describing others in the same situation as "former," so @CitroenLover is right to note the lack of consistency here.
- As regards this anonymous IP editor, they are clearly trolling and seeking out opportunities to get into edit wars. The more we engage in lengthy discussions about the merits of their changes, the worse this will get, I believe. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
- @HurricaneHiggins i agree on all points. When someone says they have retired, then we should document it specifically, as there’s no likelihood they will come back. The only controversial one is Stephen Hendry, but i think most people would accept he is definitively retired, even though he came back for one tour card during Covid, but ultimately, accuracy is more important: if a player announces retirement, we should use that over “former”. — CitroenLover (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, @CitroenLover. I fully agree, especially if we're going to use "former professional" to describe players who have lost their tour cards. Bulcsú Révész and Robbie McGuigan are now described as a "former professional" players, even though they are just 19 and 21 years old. Those are very different cases to a veteran like Doherty, who played on the tour for 36 years before formally retiring at age 56. The case of Hendry is easily explained as he initially retired relatively young for a snooker player (around the same age as Shaun Murphy and Neil Robertson are now) and sportspeople come out of retirement all the time. We do have cases like Robert Milkins and Mark Davis, who recently dropped off the tour in their 50s but have not made any retirement announcements. In that case I think "former professional" is appropriate until such time as they state differently. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yep, well said. We should use "former" when a player has not actively announced a retirement from the sport, and "retired" when the player has actively announced they are retiring and no longer intending to compete further in the sport. Of course, a player could announce they are "coming out of retirement", but apart from Hendry, there's no instances of snooker players specifically doing this (so when they retire, they are 100% not coming back to professional snooker. The only way that it would make sense for retired players to be listed as "former" would be if we stopped using the word "professional" and just referred to them as a "snooker player" (in this situation, it would be more accurate to write "former professional player" for retired players, especially if the player is playing in other forms of snooker). -- CitroenLover (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
- Surely that means that we'll have to explicitly cite the use of "retired" by that player. If someone hasn't explicitly said they are retired, we are saying that they aren't retired. All seems a bit overkill when the word "former" is never not accurate. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yep, well said. We should use "former" when a player has not actively announced a retirement from the sport, and "retired" when the player has actively announced they are retiring and no longer intending to compete further in the sport. Of course, a player could announce they are "coming out of retirement", but apart from Hendry, there's no instances of snooker players specifically doing this (so when they retire, they are 100% not coming back to professional snooker. The only way that it would make sense for retired players to be listed as "former" would be if we stopped using the word "professional" and just referred to them as a "snooker player" (in this situation, it would be more accurate to write "former professional player" for retired players, especially if the player is playing in other forms of snooker). -- CitroenLover (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, @CitroenLover. I fully agree, especially if we're going to use "former professional" to describe players who have lost their tour cards. Bulcsú Révész and Robbie McGuigan are now described as a "former professional" players, even though they are just 19 and 21 years old. Those are very different cases to a veteran like Doherty, who played on the tour for 36 years before formally retiring at age 56. The case of Hendry is easily explained as he initially retired relatively young for a snooker player (around the same age as Shaun Murphy and Neil Robertson are now) and sportspeople come out of retirement all the time. We do have cases like Robert Milkins and Mark Davis, who recently dropped off the tour in their 50s but have not made any retirement announcements. In that case I think "former professional" is appropriate until such time as they state differently. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
- @HurricaneHiggins i agree on all points. When someone says they have retired, then we should document it specifically, as there’s no likelihood they will come back. The only controversial one is Stephen Hendry, but i think most people would accept he is definitively retired, even though he came back for one tour card during Covid, but ultimately, accuracy is more important: if a player announces retirement, we should use that over “former”. — CitroenLover (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd agree it is as accurate. So why use it over just saying former. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:57, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski good point, although it'd be good to have consistency (technically Steve Davis is a pundit/commentator, just like Ken, but Steve isn't playing professional snooker). For me, if a player actively states they are retiring from professional snooker, then to say "is a <nationality> retired professional snooker player" would be just as accurate as "is a <nationality> former professional snooker player", but ultimately I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't going to get done in for revert warring with an IP editor who is clearly block-evading (per message below). --CitroenLover (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- Almost certainly all from the same banned, disruptive editor:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sisao25
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DooksFoley147
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-23482-97
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2025-32787-60
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2025-33135-90
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-29686-0
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-68682-3
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-10338-94
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-22589-25
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/178.167.130.163
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-32885-88
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-37165-1 Woodlandscaley (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Testing an AI inconsistency checker
I've built a tool using Gemini and Claude that is not always right but might sometimes be helpful. It is meant to look for inconsistencies between a Wikipedia page, other Wikipedia pages, and other websites. As an example, for Alex Higgins it came up with the following:
- 1. Professional Debut Year
- Wikipedia page claims: After turning professional in 1970, he won the World Snooker Championship in 1972...
- Source: SnookerHQ.com, Pro Snooker Blog: Alex Higgins turned professional in 1971.
- ⚠ The Alex Higgins Wikipedia page states he turned professional in 1970. However, multiple other snooker-focused sources, including SnookerHQ.com and Pro Snooker Blog, state his professional career began in 1971, often referring to the 1971/72 season. Given the 1972 World Championship began in March 1971, a 1971 professional start seems more consistent with his participation in that event. The 1971 date is likely correct.
- 2. 1972 World Snooker Championship Final Score
- Wikipedia page claims: he won the World Snooker Championship in 1972, defeating John Spencer 37–31 in the final...
- Source: Scots Wikipedia (Alex Higgins), fcsnooker.co.uk, Pro Snooker Blog: Higgins turned professional whan he wis 22, winnin the Warld Championship at his first attempt in 1972, agin John Spencer winnin 37–32. / 1972 - Winner v John Spencer 37 - 32. / as he overcame the reigning champion Spencer in the final with a 37-32 victory
- ⚠ The Alex Higgins Wikipedia page and the dedicated '1972 World Snooker Championship' Wikipedia page both state the final score was 37-31. The '1972 World Snooker Championship' page even includes a note explicitly stating that 'Some sources give the score as 37–32. The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker: The Complete Record & History (2004) says "Higgins triumphed 37–31 (not 37–32 as so many publications have wrongly printed)"'. Therefore, 37-31 is the correct score, and the claims of 37-32 on other sources are incorrect.
On the debut year, I do have the 1970 sources to back up what's in the article. Let me know if there are any pages you would like me to run through the checker. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Qualifying before the main draw
I have noticed that Wonderwizard is editing many snooker-related articles to show the qualifying results before the main draw. Was there any previous consensus about this? I don't have arguments to support one way over the other, but the truth is that we now have two different ways of doing things across articles and I believe it would be better to do it the same way everywhere. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Generally I don't think there's any specific rules about section orders. I suppose the obvious choices are 1. Chronological 2. Most important stuff at the top, least important stuff at the bottom. Personally I'd rather go for 2. Most readers are not very interested in the qualifying, I'd put it below the main draw. Nigej (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Bit late to this but I agree with Nigej. It means a lot of scolling to see the main draw on 1990s world champiomship articles. Many of the changes were to articles that passed as GA or FA; I think the issue of the ordering was raised at one FAC discussion but mostly they were accepted with the qualiying results after the main draw which means quite a few editors were happy with that. Personally I wouldn't make wholesale changes like that to articles that have passed as FA without referring to a discussion or policy/guideline. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
Problem with archives of WST pages
There seems to be a problem with archives of WST pages.
As an example, if you click on https://web.archive.org/web/20240112204201/https://www.wst.tv/news/2024/january/12/pistol-fires-in-147/ it will take you to the un-archived page https://www.wst.tv/news/2024/january/12/pistol-fires-in-147/.
These all worked OK yesterday, but no archives of any WST pages are working today.
Any ideas anyone? Alan (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- I checked a few WST archived sources on Neil Robertson. All were fine. Hopefully the issue is not widespread. Canary757 (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- I just checked the very first ref in Neil Robertson and it takes me to the original URL, NOT the archive. Alan (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
On the subject of archive links, when I ran IABOt on John Street (snooker referee) it gave a dud link to an archive.org page when replacing an archive.today link. Luckily I noticed and fixed it. Another thing to watch out for. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- IABot should be used with caution. It makes mistakes.
Anyway, the WST archives are still not working, and I have no idea what is going on.
Could someone, cleverer than me, have a look at this please. Alan (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2026 (UTC)- Whatever that was, it now seems to have sorted itself out.
Alan (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2026 (UTC) - ...and now the problem has returned. I think the Wayback Machine is having problems. It was down earlier today and reported a power outage. Watch this space. Alan (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- ...and now it's working again. Alan (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- ...and now the problem has returned again. I've been working with archives all day and it's been fine until just now.
Alan (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2026 (UTC) - ...and it just started working again. This is becoming intolerable.
Could somebody please work out what is going on? Alan (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Whatever that was, it now seems to have sorted itself out.
