Talk:2021 World Snooker Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Featured article2021 World Snooker Championship is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 2, 2022.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 20, 2021Good article nomineeListed
January 21, 2022Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 19, 2022Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 25, 2022Featured article candidatePromoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 3, 2021.
Current status: Featured article

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qualification seedings

Any idea why these only go up to 96? We don't generally give out seedings to amateur players (although, personally, I think an "a" would make sense, per 2019 World Snooker Championship), however a lot without seeds are professional players, and have seedings according to the sources listed [7], such as Hendry (125), Farakh Ajaib (121) etc. Should we add these? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe how it works in the first round is as follows: players officially ranked #81-#112 are seeded, professional players ranked #113-#128 are UNSEEDED and are drawn RANDOMLY (along with the 16 invited amateur players) to play against the seeded players #81-#112. So, no we shouldn't add "Hendry (125), Farakh Ajaib (121)", because there's only 96 seeded players for the World Championship qualifiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:1AE4:D658:B5D3:86A2:FD92:AE7C (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The source given offers seedings for these players. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source you're linking to, is showing their OFFICIAL two-year ranking, "Zhou Yuelong [17]". But, in the qualifiers, players RANKED #17-#112 are SEEDED (for the qualifiers) as 1-96, hence, as you see listed for the qualifying rounds here, "1 Zhou Yuelong (CHN)", "2 Stuart Bingham (ENG)" (who is currently #18 in the world), etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:1AE4:D658:D88:2216:B185:3F23 (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, where do we have a list of the seedings that we currently use? I haven't seen this source. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

look at the World Snooker Qualifying draw on the PDF file they have done it this way for two season's now. 31.200.148.242 (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got a link to this? The only one I have is [8], which shows no seedings for players. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Players ranked 1–16 are seeded 1–16 in the main draw. Except Ronnie being seeded 1 as defending champion. Players ranked 17–112 are seeded 1–96 in the qualification draw – except from players not participating (Marco Fu and Mei Xiven). Players ranked below 112 (or 114 because of those nonparticipating players) are unseeded. Players from outside the main tour are also unseeded. I do not have a link to the information, but it follows from reading the rankings. It has been the same for the past championships and other tournaments. I don't know if it is a problem to state something that is obviously true and uncontroversial, without having a direct source. I can't come up with a perfect analogy, but it would be something like stating 87 + 77 = 164, without a source. Well that's just my take on it. Best wishes to you all. Mrloop (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I know that's how the draw works, but we don't actually have a source for the seeds, other than what we've put together. If we have a draw somewhere with the specific seeds, that would put my mind at ease, or it's
WP:OR. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay, it was just an answer to your question on why the seedings only go up to 96. In my eyes it seems like overkill to call it research when you deduct 16 from the rankings to show the seedings for the draw. But that's just my view. Best Wishes, and thank you for your work on the article, Mrloop (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not trying to be hard work :P. I will be taking this to FAC inevitably, and I know this will be something others will enquire about. I'll keep searching for a good source for the seedings. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:2021 World Snooker Championship/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amakuru (talk · contribs) 19:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • Should snooker be linked here, as the first occurrence in the body?
  • The term "single elimination" doesn't sound recognisable to me as a British English speaker. Would "knock-out" be a more usual term?
    • I mean, it is, but knockout tournaments are also things like double-elimination tournaments and events that have a play-off/3rd place match. I think single-elimination tournament is more descriptive, and is where our article is at. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 32 players for the event are selected" - I kind of prefer using past tense throughout in narratives like this, rather than trying to base the tense on which rules are still in place and which are now superseded (an assessment which would have to continually keep being made, and would even need ongoing sourcing too per
    MOS:CURRENT
    ).
    • Nope, your right, I just didn't update since the event was played. Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason why Birmingham is not linked, but Sheffield is?
Format
  • "in Sheffield, England" - this seems a bit redundant, given we said it was in Sheffield one paragraph ago.
Coverage
  • "a limited number of fans" - is "fans" an encyclopedic term?
    • Changed to spectators.
  • MOS:PERCENT
    advises to use "per cent" rather than %
Qualifying
  • nicknamed "judgement day" - does everyone nickname it that, or is that just a headline by one particular observer?
    • That's the official name. I suppose we could say "named Judgement Day", so I've changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come tomorrow!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First round
Second round
  • "McGill also won the next four frames (seven in total)" - what does the "seven in total" part mean? The score was previously 4–4, so I'd assume his overall count was eight by the end of this.
    • I was getting at it being seven frames in a row, a total of eight. Hopefully my wording is now better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where he won all three Triple Crown events" - would prefer "in which" rather than "where"
  • "the referee awarded him the frame. Jones, however, revoked the concession" - not quite clear what happened here. Did the referee assume that Jones was conceding only for Jones to say "actually I'm not", or did Jones actually concede and then changed his mind?
  • "Murphy faced the last Chinese player remaining Yan, and won the opening session 6–2" there should probably be a comma before "Yan"
  • "making the highest break of the tournament, a 144" - so far, or throughout the whole event?
  • "half century breaks" -> "half-century breaks". Also, I'm not sure why this is linked here, the concept is first mentioned above in the Joyce–O'Sullivan game. And it should point to the relevant place in the glossary.
  • "He won the match winning four of the next five frames to win 13–7" - "won" and "win" is slightly repetitive.
Quarter-finals
  • "but were tied at 8–8 after the second" - should be "but they were tied..." I'd think
  • "Selby required just two sessions to defeat Williams as he won the match with a session to spare" - this sounds like it's saying the same thing twice.
  • "Williams had been playing a break off where he rolled up to the reds, rather than play a safety shot throughout the tournament" - might work better with "Throughout the tournament" first.
  • Also, does the novelty break-off not still count as a "safety shot", as the assumption is that there aren't easy reds to pot?
    • I've never heard of anyone refer to a roll-up as a safety. However, I've expanded to make it clear Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to take a 11–10 lead" - should be "an 11–10"
Semi-finals
  • "the 2015 final" - would prefer more in the link here, otherwise it looks like a link to 2015 the year rather than to the tournament of that year.
  • That line has a [citation needed] on it too.
  • "which he failed to escape from" -> "from which he failed to escape"?
  • "on several occasions awarding 53 foul points; allowing Murphy to win the frame" - sounds slightly odd; who "awarded" these points? Maybe something like "conceding 53 foul points to Murphy and allowing him to win the frame".
  • "trailing by four" -> "to trail by four"
Final
  • "since the 2007 semi-final" - same as above, re link text
  • "The two players share the same coach, Chris Henry" - as above, I'd put this in the past tense
  • "Selby scored the first century break of the final in frame 21" - how many points did he make exactly?
Qualifying
  • No prose issues I can see.

@Lee Vilenski: that's it for my first pass. I'll have a look at referencing and the other GA criteria once you've had a chance to look at these. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed all of the above Amakuru, thanks for the review! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks Lee that all looks good to me. Signing off for GA.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAC source review comments

As I got zero chance to respond to the comments, copying them here to work through. :/

Source & verification review by MrLinkinPark333

Hey Lee. I'll do a source review of this one (review version). As this is a lengthy article, I'll have to break up my review into sections. I'll do the easier sections first:

  • Qualifying stage centuries:
    • "made by Mark Davis in his third round win over Stuart Carrington." - Centuries list for qualifiyng doesn't mention winner of each match. Therefore, "third round win over" -> "third round match against" or something similar.
    • I mean, sure, but we have got a fully sourced results list on the page - it's not like it isn't sourced. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main stage centuries:
    • Archived copy of Centuries in the Main Stage needs to be adjusted to May 14th to show all 108. Done
    • "surpassing the previous best of 100 set in 2019" - Original Research as only the 2021 centuries are listed Done
    • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "made by Shaun Murphy in his second round win over Yan Bingtao." - same as above, the Centuries list doesn't state the winners of each match. So, I suggest "second round win over" -> "second round match against"
    • "three short of the record held by Stephen Hendry, but made an additional four centuries in qualification" - two Original Research issues here. 1) No mention of Hendry's record of 13 centuries in main stage. 2) While Bingham did indeed made 4 additional centuries in qualifying, only the main stage centuries are cited in this section (qualifying centuries are in a different source). Done
  • Qualifying
    • No mention of Kowalski and Yize withdrawing / Hussain and Leclercq replacing at WST Qualifiers. New source needed.
    • cited Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No mention of Xiwen, Fu, and Mifsud withdrawing / White, Davison, and Fernandez replacing them as Q school entries. New source needed.
    • cited Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, since White, Davison, and Fernandez are amateurs, a source that states this could also help, as it'd prevent confusion of why there are 19 amateurs instead of 16.
      • Well, they aren't on the tour, so by definition they were amateurs. Not sure this needs citing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the 16 amateur players selected to participate in the qualifying rounds" - Kowalski and Yize were selected to play by WPBSA, not Hussain and Leclercq. However, you did mention them earlier in the paragraph (withHussain and Leclercq replacing Kowalski and Yize). If it's easier, you can drop Hussain and Leclercq in the last sentence of the paragraph and adjust the sentence to mention the remaining 14 amateurs. Then, in the first sentence of the paragraph, mention Hussain and Leclercq are amateurs so all are covered.
  • Qualifying draw:
    • Allan Taylor & Bai Langning's 1st round match was 6-4 not 6-3 per World Snooker Full Draw. Done
    • Mark Joyce & Anthony Hamilton's 3rd round match was 6-3 not 6-4 per Full Draw. Done
    • The rankings do not match the snooker.org rankings. Either a new source is needed or all of the rankings need to be replaced.

More to come later --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Main draw
    • Need source(s) to show the dates each match was held and how many frames per match to win for all rounds [first rounds all the way to final] as snooker.org doesn't say.
    • It does on the archived site. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Session 3 frame 1 was 4-84, not 4-87 Done
    • Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Session 3 frame 2 Selby has 62 break Done
    • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per Session 3 break of 62 for Selby, it'd be 15 50+ breaks for Selby, not 14 Done --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background
    • Gotta have to request the Snooker Scene source either by you or someone else as I don't see verification with the other 2 WST sources. Note to self: come back later to fully check afterwards
    • "The first World Snooker Championship took place in 1927" - well, the final was in 1927, but it started in November 1926 per Chris Turner. Done
    • "Since 1977, the event has been held at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, England" - not verified by Historic England. Done
    • Source changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Organised by World Snooker, in partnership with the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Assoication (WPBSA)" - little bit of rewording needed as it's almost exactly the same as The Star.
      • Reworded slightly. Not sure it's really close paraphrasing though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The 2020 championship was won by English player Ronnie O'Sullivan, who defeated compatriot Kyren Wilson" - no mention in the three sources that both players are from England. I also think 3 sources is excessive as they say the same thing (apart from the England part). Done
  • Format  Done
    • "took place between 17 April and 3 May 2021 at the Crucible Theatre" - BBC Sport has all expect May 3rd for the final. Either source can be swapped out or extra source needed. Done
    • "The event featured a 32-player main draw contested at the Crucible" - doesn't mention Crucible, so can easily be reworded to "at the Championship" or something similar. Done
    • Ents24 is a website selling tickets to the championship. I don't think this a high-quality source, nor needed as snooker.org already covers the 2020-21 season in the "last of 15 ranking events" sentence. Done
    • "It was the 45th consecutive year that the tournament had been held at the Crucible" - Not verified by Historic England, so the source needs swapping out. Done
    • "sponsored by sports betting company Betfred, as it has been since 2015" - SBC News says Betfred has sponsored the torunament since 2009, not 2015. Done
    • "qualified for the main draw as seeded players. Defending champion Ronnie O'Sullivan was automatically seeded first overall" - not sure if Eurosport if clear enough about the seeded parts to verify. Might be better to combine references with the next one (Race to the Crucible). Done
    • "released after the 2021 Tour Championship which was the penultimate ranking event of the season." - no mention by WPBSA that Tour Championship was penultimate ranking event. Done
  • Coverage
    • Not 100% sure about the reliability of Sporting Free per their About Us page. No indication of a editorial team. I don't think this is a high-quality source for FA. Therefore:
      • New source needed to show the Tournament was shown on BBC Television and BBC Online.
      • "Superstars Online, Zhibo.tv, Youku, and CCTV in China; by NowTV in Hong Kong; and by DAZN in Canada, the United States, and Brazil" - majority of this is Original Research. The only channel mentioned by Sporting Free is DAZN. However, it specifically states Canada only, not USA or Brazil. The other channels/countries are not mentioned. There is also the question of whether this is a high-quality source for FA or not. In any case, majority of this sentence is not verified.
    • "broadcast in Europe and Australia by Eurosport, who also covered the qualifying rounds" - Eurosport only mentions it would broadcast the 17 days of the tournament (April 17 - May 3), not the qualifying rounds beforehand. Done
      • All of the above covered by the source that I've added, which should have been the one used regardless.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It was the first and only event of the 2020–21 snooker season not to be staged behind closed doors." - not stated by World Snooker Tour. Done
  • Prize fund  Done
    • Need source to show maximum break prizes for main stage and qualifying stage (World Snooker Tour doesnt have it). Done

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going to have to stop here for several reasons: I don't have access to the Snooker Scene source, so I would need to request access. However, I've been finding Original research issues. If it was simple errors like 6-4 instead of 6-3, that'd be okay. However, there are instances where sentences are not backed up by the sources (i.e. Hendry's record, Fu withdrawing, 2021 Tour Championship being pentultimate, streamed on Superstars Online, etc.) I also do not think Sporting Free or Ents24 are not high-quality sources for FA. Please note I have not gone through the Summary or sub-sections. If you are wanting to me to continue to review the rest, both the Original Research & questions of high-quality sources will need to be addressed first. Let me know what you think. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand the FAC process sometimes. What is the point of closing it (for the second time in two months!) before you've even had the chance to respond? Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. I got through most of the comments in around 40 minutes. I'll have to wait 14 days to renominate, so I'll take my time with the rest.duBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC
Hi MrLinkinPark333, I've made a few adjustments per your comments on the FAC - do you mind taking a second look? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Lee Vilenski:, here's an updated list as of February 22nd:
  • Background: I did miss that both O'Sullivan and Wilson are from England (didn't see the bolded part). In that case, I suggest keeping only the SkySports cite as the other 2 aren't needed.
  • Coverage:  Done
    • Still the question of whether SportingFree is reliable as a high-quality source for "broadcast in the United Kingdom on BBC Television and BBC Online". Your new source in the point below only stats BBC, not BBC Online. Done
    • I'd removed that source anyway. I now no longer mention BBC Online, but it is the same company. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In regards to World Snooker ("How To Watch The Betfred World Championship), most is verified except for Superstars Online in China. Either you could swap it out for Migu or Kuaishou, or drop Superstars Online. Done
    • Swapped. Kuaishou is like a Chinese YouTube/Facebook. Who knew? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualifying:
    • Kowalski and Yize withdrawing / Hussain and Leclercq hasn't been cited yet. Done
    • Added a cite that specifically states this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Xiwen, Fu, and Mifsud withdrawing / White, Davison, and Fernandez replacing them as Q school entries hasnt been cited yet.
      • Couldn't find anywhere. Removed, added those to the list of amateurs. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mentioned the Q school entries aren't amateurs. However, White, Davison, and Fernandez are marked as amateurs in the Qualifying draw. If they aren't, then that needs changing. Done
  • Main draw: That's odd that the dates/frames are only shown in the archived copy. In any case, it only goes up to Round 2 (with names of the players) as the rest are TBD without having to check a different archived date. I did find this source from Eurosport though that would make it clearer. Done
  • Qualifying draw: In that case, a source is needed to show the world rankings as snooker.org shows the qualifying seedings.
      • Only bit I'm struggling with. Might change all of the numbers to be the world rankings, but that'll be quite a bit of work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main stage centuries: Similarly, you can add reuse a source that shows Murphy won his second round match and had the 144 century if you want to keep the win part there.
  • Qualifying stage centuries: As you only mention the 143 century in this section (and not above in the qualifying rounds), you can add another source to show Davis won his third round match and had the 143 century if you feel the win part needs to be there. Done
  • Other: I need access to the Snooker Scene August 2020 magazine article to fully check Background and qualifying. If you have it, could you send it over? Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, I've sent you an email. If you can reply, that'd be great. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is the May and June 2021 entries you are after, which I've clarified in the sources. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover Part 2 @Lee Vilenski:

  • Need the Snooker Scene May 2021 article to verify background and qualifying.
  • Second round win needs to be swapped to second round match for Murphy at Main stage centuries
  • What is your solution to address the Qualifying draw rankings issue? If you have a source that matches the rankings, that's great! Otherwise, if you have to swap it out to world rankings, that's fine by me. My question is, what rankings are currently used in the section? It's not event rankings as it doesn't match Snooker.org --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll change to world rankings (by adding 16 to all of the seedings), but this'll take some time and I'll do it before I renominate Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022 @Lee Vilenski:

  • May 2021 Snooker Scene does not verify all of the amateurs. The ones verified are Leclercq, Quinn and McGuigan. Maybe Mertens and Nuble based on their age. But that's only 5 out of 19. I think maybe a source is needed to show there were 18 amateurs in the tournaments and then mention ones you can verify like Leclercq, Quinn and McGuigan. Otherwise, you could show there were 18 amateurs in the tournament with a source but not mention all 18. I don't know if either would work for you, especially as it effects the Qualifying draw.
    • I'll take a look now. Potentially remove the phrase. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just removed it. I'm not sure why we brought so much attention to specific players in the draw. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • May 2021 Snooker Scene also doesn't verify 32 professional players or they entered based on their world rankings.
    • Also, WPBSA provisional (ref 3) and WPBSA rankings update (ref 2) aren't supporting it either. The rankings update is for the 2020 championship, not 2021. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That bit is specifically about how the event is generally held, not about the 2021 event specifically, so I don't think there's any issues. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • MrLinkinPark333 - I'm going to work my way through updating the seeds tomorrow (to be world rankings instead). If I complete that, would you be happy with the remainder of the article? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lee Vilenski: If you swap it over to world rankings, does that mean you'd be removing the amateur designations as well? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's right. It only really mattered in 2019 when an amateur actually qualified. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made the changes, although I've retained the Amateur status, as it's shown on the snooker.org draw. Was there anything else? Was thinking of nominating it again today. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "19 additional amateur players were given places to fill out the remaining places" isnt verified with Snooker Scene magazine. If it is, could you point to me which page(s)? This is also confusing as 112 professsionals+16 amateurs would compete, making it 128 per WPBSA Qualifiers. Why was this increased to 144? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just removed "19", and said that amateurs completed the lineup, which is sourced. On the numbers, it wasn't increased. It's 144 because it's 128 (the total in qualifying) plus the 16 automatic qualifiers = a last 144 place. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to Qualifying draw, there are some errors:
    • Doherty is 95, while Lichtenberg is 96 (Lichtenberg also needs update in Round 2)
    • Pinches is 88, while Vahedi is 89.
    • Lilley is 94, while Carty is 92. (Lilley also needs update in Round 2)
    • Sargeant is 100, while Jianbo is 101 (Sargeant also needs update in Round 2)
    • Pengfei 52 (Round 2)
    • Carrington 54 (Round 2)
    • Grace 53 (Round 2) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now fixed these. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_World_Snooker_Championship&oldid=1196894687"