Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2020/December

Hello everyone. I think this has been discussed before, but some of the nicknames being added to the infoboxes are crazy. Generally they are attempts at being humorous or wordplay on their names; I just this evening removed an unsourced nickname of "The Figurehead" from Igor Figueiredo's page, plus there's another unsourced one on there. How can a player whose highest ever ranking is 65 possibly have 3 nicknames?!

On a more serious note, on several occasions I've removed "Pothello" from Rory McLeod's page (repeatedly added by IP users). Unless I am very much mistaken and he has ever been nicknamed as such (couldn't find any references and I very much doubt it), this is a troublesome one because it's clearly a take on the main character from the Shakespeare play Othello (if unfamiliar with it, look up the main character of the play for the connotation here).

Not sure if there's a solution other than keeping track of the pages, but is this section of the infobox really necessary? The same aim could be achieved by simply referencing the nickname in the article lead but I would like to hear everyone else's views. To me that infobox section just looks like a potential magnet for abuse. Andygray110 (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it is a problem. Various possibilities come to mind: 1) delete it 2) have a clever system (like the rankings) where the nicknames are held centrally. This could match List of snooker player nicknames 3) Restrict to one entry. Nigej (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need to do anything special. If a non-cited or offensive nick is continuously added, let me know and we can protect the page. I have no issues with someone having four nicknames if they are well cited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I would be happy for appropriately referenced nicknames to be included, and for there to be the option for several. (Steve Davis has a few, for example.) I had a look in the 5th Edition of the Benson and Hedges Yearbook (1988). It has a few nicknames that I don't recall: Buzby (Neal Foulds), Spike (Stephen Hendry), The Methodical Mountie (Cliff Thorburn), Snowy (Terry Griffiths), Hammer (Mike Hallett), Guy the Gorilla (Peter Francisco), Bugsy (John Virgo), Deano/Haddock (Dean Reynolds), Houdini (Eugene Hughes), The Doctor (Dene O'Kane), Sniffer/Spenny (John Spencer), and the imaginative JP (John Parrott) and TK (Tony Knowles). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree about there not being a firm limit, as Davis is the prime example of having three very well known ones (nugget, interesting, romford slim). I think it's worth a cull on those that don't have an RS attached. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It should be limited to "official" nicknames they have been introduced by, IMO. Steve Davis for example has only ever have had one snooker nickname ("The Nugget"). "Romford Slim" is his pool nickname (so arguably does not belong in the snooker infobox) while "Interesting" was a piss-take by Spitting Image that caught on and became a pop culture moment. Sometimes nicknames change when the MC changes: Neil Robertson has been introduced as the "Thunder from Down Under" and "The Melbourne Machine". Judd Trump was originally better known for his haircuts and was briefly introduced as "Haircut 100" (understandably it didn't catch on) before "The Ace" stuck (I have never actually heard him introduced as "The Juddernaught"). Stephen Maguire has an interesting background: when he burst on to the scene he was introduced as "One fire Maguire" before hitting some bad form; this resulted in a couple of commentators (Clive Everton and Neal Foulds if I recall) gamely riffing it as "Pretty dire Maguire". This resulted in a new nickname of "The Merlin of Milton". Apparently Maguire hated it which resulted in it being changed to "Live wire". Betty Logan (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys, on a recent GAN, it was suggested that list of reliable sources for cue sports and snooker would be appropriate, as we do use some ones that require explaination. I'd like to create something at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue Sports/Reliable Sources or WP:CUE/RS (and potentially WP:SNOOKER/RS). We can discuss any items, and have a formal consensus for and against items. Here's a few that I have, feel free to add/question its use:

• BBC
• Eurosport
• World Snooker
• Snooker Scene
• SnookerHQ
• Regular newspapers, times, Guardian, Independent etc.
• Matchroom Sport
• globalsnookercentre.co.uk
• Sporting Life
• Snooker Heritage
• cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
• Global Snooker Centre
• Snooker Database
• Sky Sports
• Snooker.org
• Anything by Clive Everton

Unreliable

• Cuetracker
• WP:DAILYMAIL
• The Sun
• The Metro
• Pro Snooker Blog

I also have some pool specific items, anyone have any thoughts to creating this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would add the CueSport Book of Professional Snooker (Eric Hayton) to the reliable source list. It has a wealth of snooker stats up to 2003—it is a kind of almanac for 20th century snooker. I have concerns about the following sources:

1. SnookerHQ
2. Snooker Heritage
3. Snooker Database

What makes these credible sources? Generally when we accept self-published sites they need to be run by someone credible. For example cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk was run by the guy who did stats for Eurosport, Global Snooker Centre had its own in-house journalist who attended tournaments (Janie Watkins) and I think—although I'm not 100% sure—Snooker.org was set up by a Dutch sports journalist. Betty Logan (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought there was more than just David Caulfield that did work for snookerHQ, as they use the word "team" to describe the content. They've been running for 9 years now, so certainly got a long track record. The reason we check for someone being credible is due to having issues with facts (and thus not being reliable). I'm yet to find any issue with snookerHQ and they are one of the few places to comment on the smaller competitions, and also after events. Caulfield is a graduate journalist who I believe did some work for BBC Sport and Talksport? I would have to do some extra digging on those. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

For general newspapers and websites I think we only need to talk about whether we think there are any exceptions to the accepted standards across Wikipedia generally (e.g. WP:RSP). A lot of the sources seem reliable on results and details but as with any source we need to be conscious of possible POV-pushing (e.g. Everton's disputes with the WPBSA in the past). I'll wait and see what others think of the websites (SnookerHQ, Chris Turner, etc.) - I try to avoid them for sources if I can get an alternative. I think we could also have an "errata" page where known errors or contradictions in generally-reliable sources have been detected. (I might do this on my own user page if it's not of more general interest.) Some reliable sources in my opinion (at the moment!) include:

• Websites (for tournament details, results, player profiles etc.): WPBSA Tournament Manager, other WPBSA affiliated sites such as World Women's Snooker, World Billiards etc., IBSF site and their linked results sites. I think Snooker Heritage is reliable: a lot of those articles (possibly all?) were published in Cue World in the early 80's.
• Books: Anything by Ian Morrison; The Benson and Hedges Snooker Yearbooks; The Rothmans Snooker Yearbooks; Kobylecky's The Complete International Directory of Snooker Players – 1927 to 2018 (possibly controversial); the Crucible Almanac; BA&CC/B&SCC Handbooks; Karnehm's World Snooker books. Definitely The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker as mentioned above.
• Magazines: The Billiard Player/Billiards and Snooker (whilst bearing in mind it was published by the BA&CC/B&SCC except in the early years), Cue World, Pot Black, CueSport. I don't know about The Q World, never read a copy.

Thanks Lee V for kicking this off. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask why Cuetracker is classed as an unreliable source? It does seem odd, seeing as the site has been used by both the BBC and Eurosport for some of their snooker statistics. I believe, judging by past tweets on Twitter, that Neal Foulds sometimes refers to it when he's commentating, and that Eurosport Germany use it as well. In fact the creator, Ron Florax, was a guest commentator on one of the Nordic Europsort channels for a snooker tournament a couple of years back. Ron Florax is also the creator of the WPBSA SnookerScores site. Steveflan (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Cuetracker is strewn with errors. As a basic example off the top of my head, it has Stephen Hendry listed on 772 centuries when in fact he retired on 775. There are many inconsistencies in its century statistics. Nige has also uncovered errors in historic results listed on there. It is a good resource so it comes as no surprise the BBC uses it, but the BBC uses many different sources for its data so it probably exercises discretion or judgment over what it uses it for. I actually like the site but the problem is there is no editorial oversight, which makes it problematic to use a general source. Betty Logan (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for the prompt reply. I did find an archived discussion about this after I originally posted my question. Personally I do find it odd that one of the main issues seems to be around player centuries when the sites creator, Ron Florax, has stated, and accepts, that his figures may not match those of other sourcecs in this interview on SnookerHQ

"Aside from hard-to-obtain data as I mentioned, the other thing was being taken seriously. A notable issue is the slight discrepancies which sometimes appear in the total number of centuries between, for example, the numbers used by Eurosport and the numbers my site comes up with. Part of this has to do with my site not yet listing team events, because the system needs modification, but largely it is a catch-22 because I can’t verify whether mine or other data is correct. The commonly agreed-on list as used by Eurosport does not have a detailed specification of which centuries by which players in which tournaments are included, so it becomes impossible to check if I am missing some, or perhaps certain events are counted on one list but not the other."

However, I do agree that there are some errors in the data (some of which I've found as well), and fully understand the lack of editorial oversight you mention. Steveflan (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting differences between http://livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/Rankings/index/14154 and https://wst.tv/rankings/ (which is the same as https://wst.tv/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/World-Ranking-List-after-2020-BetVictor-European-Masters.pdf). Where players have the same prize money, the two give different rankings. eg one has Elliot Slessor at 57 while the other has him at 58. At the bottom end almost all the players have different rankings. Any ideas? Nigej (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, in these cases they're probably treated as being joint 57, but it would rarely matter to the WST. I'd trust https://wst.tv/rankings/ above the others as an "official" list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd assumed previously that there was some tie-breaker rule, but maybe it's just random. Nigej (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I notice a recent post by WST (https://wst.tv/last-lap-in-world-grand-prix-race/) mentions "the usual rule of ‘countback’ will apply to determine their position on the one-year list". An earlier post says "Players tied on the one-year list are separated according to countback, with the player going furthest in the most recent event to be ranked higher." (https://wst.tv/race-preston-home-straight/). A similar system was used for the BetVictor bonus: "In the event of a tie, the deciding factor will be countback, so the player going furthest in the most recent event will win the bonus." (https://wst.tv/who-will-win-the-betvictor-bonus/) Whether this system (or a similar one) is used for the main ranking list is not clear. Nigej (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Could we get some quick comments at Talk:Stephen_Hendry#Eve_Muirhead_comment please. An IP seems determined to start an edit war. I have my suspicions over who the editor is (the article has seen quite a lot of POV pushing by one particular editor in the past). There are three possible options, and it will only take a minute to pick one. Betty Logan (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)