Talk:2022 World Snooker Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Featured article2022 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 1, 2023.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 27, 2022Good article nomineeListed
January 25, 2023Featured article candidatePromoted
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 3, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

Top 16 seeds

It looks like the livescores.worldsnookerdata.com website was used to set mark allen as 15th on the article. However, the points from his exit of of the tour championship haven’t yet been added to the live points on their tracker page as far as i can tell, as this page was refreshed an hour before the match came to a conclusion. My suspicion is that the live points tracker will update this evening and show Mark Allen as being 12th, after adding 20k from playing the first round match. You can see the difference between pre-tc points and after-tc points on someone like Zhao Xintong, who came into the event at 384,500 and exited with 404,500, which correctly shows the addition of 20k ranking points. Unless the live scoring is already accounting for the addition of the points by having removed 60k from the 2020 edition and then adding 20k for this year so making the difference 40k on the site? Thanks for any clarity on my workings or non-workings here! —CitroenLover (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CitroenLover - as much as I dislike putting out draws before they are confirmed, a better source is snooker.org or WPBSA who both do this work for you. Both accurately explain why Allen is in 15th. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Lee, thanks for the links and now i understand where the rank of 15th comes from. The provisional rankings already took into account his drop of 60 from 2020 tc. At least now im not going crazy! CitroenLover (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No drama. These are generally better links IMO, although I do think
WP:CALC doesn't quite meet the criteria given to make these leaps in maths to get the rankings. We could literally wait four more days and have a RS give a full draw. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Editnotice and Liang

Hi! I have added an editnotice to this article to avoid

WP:LIVESCORES
, which is an issue for this tournament every year. Please do not add scores whilst the match is in progress.

In addition, with Liang Wenbo not taking part, can we wait until WST brings out an updated draw to see what is happening, rather than just what we think is going to happen? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan McManus mentioned on commentary on Eurosport, that the winner of Duane Jones/Dominic Dale will get a bye into round 4 of qualifying because of the Wenbo situation. 2A02:8085:7160:3B80:C946:D18:ACAC:F116 (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commentators are not a notable source of information, as they can say plenty of things, it doesn't make their statement automatically above any reliable source like draw pages. Until the draw/scoring sites specifically state that Liang's opponent gets a bye, the page will continue to display that Liang is in the draw. --CitroenLover (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When everyone involved in snooker are completely aware that he 100% isn't going to be playing? 2A02:8085:7160:3B80:C946:D18:ACAC:F116 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, WST could set up the appeal before his match and he gets granted it. Are you saying you've predicted the future to make such a confident statement? Until someone in authority from WST announces "Liang has been withdrawn from the event and his opponent will get a bye" at a time when it is clear he wouldn't be able to play his match, we do not report it as a walkover/bye in any way on this wiki. Just the same way that we did it with the Gibraltar Open and many tournaments in the past, byes/walkovers were reported once they were officially stated as "this player got a bye/walkover", it wasn't done just because someone randomly decided to make it a walkover. --CitroenLover (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with CitroenLover. As ever with this sort of thing, lets just wait until there's a proper announcement. No need for us to jump the gun. Nigej (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you guys think Alan McManus would lie about this? WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST ANGLES AND HIS BYE INFORMATION? Jones/Dale are getting a bye. McManus stated it, stop being EDITORIAL NERDS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.241.1 (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing to do with "lying". Its simply that even the best commentators sometimes say things that are incorrect. See the official https://livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/Sessions/Tournament/14525/betfred-world-championship-2022-qualifiers which currently has "67 14:30 Liang Wenbo v Winner of Match 35" on "09 APR 2022". Are you saying that WST are "lying". Nigej (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alan McManus is nearly as anal retentive as you guys, so I don't believe he would state such incorrect information. Anyways, I guess we'll just have to wait until Saturday at 2:30pm (at the latest), when Wenbo was due to play, for you guys to fully accept that Jones/Dale will just get a bye. 2A02:8085:7160:3B80:C946:D18:ACAC:F116 (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that Wenbo could appeal the suspension. Does McManus know whether he has appealed and if he has, does he know the result of the appeal? Seems surprising to me that he would know all this, when there's been no official announcement. Nigej (talk) 08:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
McManus was talking in the context of Dominic Dale keeping his tour card, that it's a big opportunity for him, with Wenbo out of the draw. He (McManus) said if Dale were to win his round 2 (£5,000) match, he would skip round 3 (£10,000) (because of the bye) and go straight to round 4 (£15,000) and possibly keep his tour card. 2A02:8085:7160:3B80:C946:D18:ACAC:F116 (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's completely irrelevant what will happen - at the moment, they are listed in the draw. We don't post what might happen, we follow the sources. I'm sure it will be a bye, but we don't make that change until WST do. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was providing additional context to another user, LEE. I've already said I concede to waiting until Saturday afternoon or whenever for the BYE to be made obvious. But feel free to continue to repeat yourself, if you like. PEST FISHES, Lee Vilenski. 2A02:8085:7160:3B80:C946:D18:ACAC:F116 (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When they update the draw, so will we. Please don't edit war so that we have to page protect the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's more, here is snookerhq saying it's a "likely" bye. I agree. It's most likely. But we don't know yet, and we do things as the draw is laid out. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems 99.9% certain he won't play. The confusing thing is why he's not yet been removed from the draw by WST. Nigej (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Nigej, normally if a player is withdrawn, its done straight away. Hopefully on Saturday we will get the answers we’re looking for, as that is when Liang’s match is scheduled to be played (2.30pm afternoon session). Until then, nothing we can do except revert any additions of it being a w/o in the draw template here. CitroenLover (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
David Hendon on Twitter: "Well done Dominic Dale. His victory over Duane Jones - and Liang Wenbo's suspension - means he is through to the final qualifying round of the World Championship and is all but certain to keep his tour card for a 31st season."
https://twitter.com/davehendon/status/1511959805409308680?cxt=HHwWkMC5wdXbx_spAAAA 2A02:8085:7160:3B80:9821:32F8:6DF7:22C1 (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does David Hendon say why he's still in the official draw and whether Wenbo will appeal and whether there's the possibility of appealing and getting reinstated before his match? Nigej (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read the tweet and find out the answers to your questions. 2A02:8085:7160:3B80:9821:32F8:6DF7:22C1 (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spoiler alert - he doesn't. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, well worth reading
WP:BLP Nigej (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Unless every commentator somehow has a private copy of the draw, he is just guessing as well, because the WPBSA do not announce when hearings will take place in public, they will only announce the outcome. Hendon is assuming the hearing won’t happen until after his match, but we don’t know if its happened already, so his tweet is nothing more than just an opinion/supposition, CitroenLover (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snooker dot org has taken the Wenbo match out of the draw/schedule, and has £15,000 down for Dominic Dale on the 1 year ranking list.
Eurosport also just stated that Dominic Dale plays his best-of-19 final qualifying match on Tuesday (12th April)...because he got a BYE. 2A02:8085:7160:3B80:687F:A6B8:764B:72F (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All you say is true, but for these sensitive legal-related areas we need to be much more careful than usual. Why isn't Wenbo removed from the official schedule at https://livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/Sessions/Tournament/14525/betfred-world-championship-2022-qualifiers ? Does it indicate that there's something going on behind the scenes. Probably not, but we need to be careful. I presume you've read
WP:BLP: "We must get the article right." "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid:" Nigej (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

https://livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/Sessions/Tournament/14525/betfred-world-championship-2022-qualifiers now says w/o for Dale. Nigej (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, of course we can see Liang is not marked as "withdrawn" so we can't put that in the draw template since it wouldn't be accurate. Hopefully the anon IP user will be happy we've put it in as walkover now. -- CitroenLover (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how this is still a thing, but "Sus" is also not a suitable entry. Please just follow what the draw says. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't play his match, as he was withdrawn from the draw (yes not voluntarily, forcibly by WST, but still withdrawn), what exactly is wrong with w/d? Are there other instances where a player didn't play his match, that we couldn't use w/d? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8085:7160:3B80:1DF1:9BC8:8F13:9791 (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
w/d is generally used to imply that the player has chosen to withdraw, rather than being forced to do so by being suspended. It's generally very rare for a player to be forcibly withdrawn by the governing body, so there are very few other instances to my knowledge of this happening: the most notable is when Jamie O'Neill was supposedly "withdrawn" by player choice before the British Open, but it was discovered WST banned him for a couple of tournaments and then made it look like it was Jamie's choice to do so. In the case of Liang though, we should follow the draw and stay with just ... if a value must be added. -- CitroenLover (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of World Snooker Tour

These articles frequently contain statements such as this: "the tournament is organised by the World Snooker Tour, a subsidiary of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association." However, this isn't accurate. The About Us page on the World Snooker website states: "World Snooker Limited’s ultimate holding company is World Snooker Holding Limited which is controlled by Matchroom Sport Limited, Barry Hearn’s private sports promotion and TV production company. The WPBSA, the sport’s Governing Body, is the next largest stakeholder in World Snooker Holding Limited." (https://wst.tv/corporate/about-us/) World Snooker Ltd operates the World Snooker Tour, which organises tournaments. So it seems incorrect to keep describing it as a "subsidiary" of the WPBSA, when Matchroom Sport has a controlling interest, with the WPBSA as a smaller stakeholder. These changes took place when the WPBSA as a governing body was separated from World Snooker as the sport's commercial arm. I'd suggest simply saying "The tournament is organised by the World Snooker Tour" and leaving out these confusing mentions of the WPBSA. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. See
WT:SNOOKER#WST/WPBSA for an earlier discussion on this topic. also see: https://wst.tv/wst-brand-relaunch-for-snooker-as-part-of-global-vision/ Nigej (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks, Nigej — that's a really helpful discussion and link. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, that's on me. I'd never seen that discussion. I'm happy for "organised by the World Snooker Tour", so long as we remove WPBSA from the infobox of any article (post relaunch). That's a good one to clearup, as I think it got confused over many different articles. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's the best wording for the organisation back to 2020 (although it could be "organised by World Snooker Tour" - no "the"), and "World Snooker" for a number of years before that. The use of the term "World Snooker Tour" for the tour goes back further, so its all somewhat confusing. Nigej (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on confusing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Live scores between sessions

Hi! I can't say I care either way, but do we have a consensus on how live scores should be treated between sessions (such as changed in this diff. There's two ways to look at it (in my eyes), that these are still in progress, and also that they are like the first leg of a match held on aggregate. Pinging Valenciano, who made the diff above. Happy Wednesday. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't mid-session scores be more like including half-time scores from a football match? I don't mind if there's consensus to include them, but it's better to have a consistent, overall policy. Valenciano (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We actually do have half-times in snooker, generally after four frames. Multi-session matches usually have a long wait between the first session and second session (and the third/fourth for really long matches). For instance, the Vafaei/Trump match about to take place has almost a day between the first nine frames and the rest of the match. The second round and semi-finals are hosted over three days each. Like I say, I don't think I have a horse in the race, but should be discussed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know how it works, I've been to the Crucible. However, the current wording seems clear that scores shouldn't be added until the end of the match. The end of the match is clearly when someone wins 10 frames in the first round. Again, no issue if consensus is different, but in that case, we would need to update
WP:LIVESCORES to reflect that new consensus. Best, Valenciano (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, absolutely. The original consensus (from 2010) didn't have a great deal of participation... And I can't say I care either way, but it's worth discussing. Even if it's so it can be clear in the MOS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be ok with it, if we deleted it on the restart. Otherwise it out-of-date and editors are likely to update it. Nigej (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anything short of page protection will stop live scores being added entirely. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the issue with scores being updated at the end of a session, especially since the media often carry interim reports on how a match stands. This is particularly an issue at the World Championship, when all matches have multiple sessions and many matches are played over two or three days. Trying to prevent this, for no clear reason, seems more trouble than it is worth. It's less of an issue at most other tournaments, when typically the final is the only two-session match. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For total clarity, I don't think scores should be added into the results table until the match is concluded and the stated score is the final score of the match. Or we at least need a note at the top indicating that mid-match scores are shown unless the winner is bolded. Come to think of it, what happened to the "Match winners are denoted in bold" at the top? Happy Thursday. Rodney Baggins (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That works fine for shorter tournaments that primarily feature best of 7/9/11 matches, but I don't think it's a feasible policy for the World Championship, where matches extend over 19, 25, 33, or 35 frames, with some played over three days. The convention at the moment is clear and unambiguous — scores are updated in italics at the end of sessions, and the winning score/player is bolded at the end of a match. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably actually state that in the prose though, so I've added a line, feel free to remove the ital comment if we aren't doing that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ye I think Updating at the end of a session is a good compromise. Updating every frame is too much 'live scores' - even Mid-session interval updates are DURING the action, so think that is still too often. But between sessions there's no action, and sometimes quite a bit of time, I think that putting this in italics is acceptable. 148.64.29.45 (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about updating scores at the end of the session and using italics for this convention. Again, this is mostly an issue that pertains to the World Championship and the Tour Championship — for most matches in most tournaments, the end of the match and the end of the session are synonymous. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the policy of "no live scores" should be slightly relaxed in the context of "end of session" scores for the Tour Champs and World Champs. As these are the only events on tour where every match is multi-sessions, it is reasonable to allow the alteration for these tournaments only, under the specific circumstance that a score must only be added, in italics, when that session of play has concluded. -- CitroenLover (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Small Corrections

Round 2 Selby vs Bingtao

"Uncertain as to whether the cue ball would pass the brown ball and allow him to pot the blue"

The colors should be the other way around: "Uncertain as to whether the cue ball would pass the blue ball and allow him to pot the brown" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strobbekoen (talk • contribs) 05:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just changed it to ignore the colours of the balls, as it only makes it more things to know. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just edited this to note that the incident happened in a pivotal moment in the frame, which hinged on a safety battle on the brown. Whether or not Yan could pot the brown arguably determined the frame. In that context, the situation and balls involved would seem relevant. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated this because the wording and associated reference strongly attempted to accuse Yan of gamesmanship. This was not the case, and it was simply Eurosport pundits jumping at a couple of random tweets to make something out of it when nothing existed. Both Yan Bingtao and Alan McManus confirmed that the former was joking and the latter had made a judgement call which turned out to be incorrect. I would strongly advise on being careful with any article posted by Eurosport: they have a recently developed habit of "generating controversy" where no such controversy exists. -- CitroenLover (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, you can't just remove the reference, you'd need to replace it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats very true, I was just in a rush trying to remove the text before it became a point of contention and resulting in edit wars on the page. I see one has been added now, apologies for not adding one at the time!! :) -- CitroenLover (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you CitroenLover for removing that BLP violation. We should not be accusing players of attempting to cheat based upon some commentators jumping to conclusions. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timing of "longest frame"

The penultimate frame of the match between Mark Selby and Yan Bingtao was the longest ever played at the Crucible. The article gives its duration as 85 minutes and 22 seconds, which is the time that was published on Twitter by World Snooker, less than 3 minutes(!) after the end of the frame.[1] However, shortly thereafter, the person who actually measured the time (Snooker referee Tatiana Woollaston, who was the marker for the match) posted a tweet where she gave the time as 84 minutes and 41 seconds.[2] I went ahead and added that alternative time to the article,[7] but was reverted because 85 mins 22 seconds is the time being published in the media ... that should be reflected here unless we have an authoritative source besides Twitter (Edit summary by User:HurricaneHiggins). I'd like to explain my reasoning, and why I think the alternative timing should be included.

I completely agree that we have to stick to reliable sources, and that World Snooker is reliable. The question is whether the person who actually was responsible for the official clock (the marker) counts as a reliable source as well? The fact that Woollaston made her statement on Twitter should be irrelevant here. Twitter can be a reliable source, depending on who makes the tweet; and besides, both times originated on Twitter, so this argument is rather weak. It's just that most media repeated the World Snooker tweet rather than that made by Woollaston.

To be sure that Woollaston's time doesn't contradict the TV footage, I then checked the full length video published by Eurosport.[8] (This would be

WP:OR
if standing alone, but I only did it to check whether I was making a fool of myself; the authoritative source remains Woollaston's tweet.) The frame is difficult to time because of an interruption about 42 minutes into the frame, when the timer was stopped for a couple of minutes. Fortunately, the official clock is shown at 01:22:16 into the video (when the old record was broken), showing 79 minutes and 33 seconds. The break finishes with the final pot at 1:27:23, that's 5 minutes and 7 seconds later. The break time then would be 84 minutes and 40 seconds, basically confirming Woollaston's tweet.

Someone then asked the commentator of German Eurosport, Rolf Kalb, which time was correct. On the German Eurosport broadcast, Kalb had given the time of 85 minutes and 22 seconds. He replied that he had taken that time from the World Snooker tweet, but that this wouldn't be the first time that such numbers would initially be given incorrectly.[3] It is unclear (to me, at least) where World Snooker got their number from, less than 3 minutes after the frame, but it seems clear that they didn't get it from the official clock.

I think we should quote 85 minutes and 22 seconds as the official time, there is no doubt about that (World Snooker is the authority here). We also should, however, give the alternative time of 84 minutes and 41 seconds, because I think the source (Woollaston) is reliable enough. Renerpho (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this came up when we discussed Ronnie's 5 minute 147 some time ago, but when does a break start? I think we concluded it was when the player struck the first red but not 100% sure. Nigej (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To answer my own question: See: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/fastest-147-break-in-snooker "From the moment that O’Sullivan first strikes the cue ball to pot his first red, the elapsed time is 5 minutes 8 seconds – a time now acknowledged by World Snooker." Nigej (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, a frame might use different rules to a break Nigej (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The official rules[9] don't say when a break starts or ends, but they are very clear about a frame: "[...] the frame commencing when the cue-ball has been placed on the table and contacted by the tip of the cue [...]" (Section 3 Rule 3(c)), and "until the frame is completed by: (a) an accepted concession by any player [...]" (Section 2 Rule 1). Basically, it starts with the break-off (hitting the white), and ends with the referee saying "and the frame". O'Sullivan's maximum was measured as 5 minutes 8 seconds in concordance with those rules. Renerpho (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This complicates things, because Woollaston says that her clock was stopped while the players took a bathroom break. There's nothing about that in these rules ... and of course a bathroom break wasn't relevant to Ronnie's 147. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we just say 85 minutes and have done? The actual length of the frame isn't that important (to this article at least). these are both primary sources, what are the secondary sources saying? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All the secondary sources I have seen trace back to the World Snooker tweet, and give their time (85 min 22 sec). But rounding the time to 85 minutes would solve the problem, at least for the moment. As far as I am aware, there are no other articles yet that mention the record, so no further action would be needed at this point. I'd still like to know what the actual time was, but that needn't be done on Wikipedia. Renerpho (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the suggested change. If further action is needed, we can continue to work on it. Thanks! Renerpho (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The previous record had also been given to the second (79 minutes 31 seconds). I have changed that to 79 minutes. I know that's not mathematically correct rounding, but I felt uncomfortable changing it to 80. Renerpho (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Renerpho, for your notes. When I reverted your edit, I was following the general rule about relying on reliable published sources for info -- and 85 minutes 22 seconds was the time widely published by World Snooker, BBC, the Guardian, and multiple other sources. I feel that it's confusing to have two conflicting times in the article. I'm happy with Lee Vilenski's solution -- the key point is that the record was broken. This debate may resurrect in future if another frame takes place in the 84/85 minute range. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that Dave Hendon, generally a good authority on snooker stats, says that he will be accepting Woolaston's posted time of 84 minutes and 41 seconds: https://twitter.com/davehendon/status/1518005268239593475 HurricaneHiggins (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, I had missed that completely! With Dave Hendon acknowledging the value of 84.41, I consider the case closed. Lee Vilenski's suggestion to leave out the seconds was simple and elegant. Renerpho (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In another Tweet, Woollaston explains that her frame clock was stopped when the players went for a brief comfort break. It's possible that the 85:22 time came from another clock that was not stopped for bathroom breaks. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The bathroom break lasted for about 3 minutes, and both clocks were obviously stopped for the majority of that time. It is possible that the difference between the two times is related to the "comfort break", but not in a straight-forward way. I could imagine that one clock was stopped slightly late (maybe when the players had actually left, rather than when Mark had first asked for the break) or restarted slightly early (like when they came back, rather than the moment they continued to play). There is nothing in the rule book that says how comfort breaks should be handled by the marker, so it is necessarily subjective. Renerpho (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Woollaston did clarify in a tweet that she stopped the clock the moment Mark asked the referee for the break.[10] That happened around time 42.50 (plus/minus a second or so). Based on the video,[11] I would say the break lasted for 2 minutes and 43 seconds (difference between the official time shown when the old record was broken, and the time stamp of the video). This would put the restart at the 45.33 mark. If you check the video, Mark hits the white ball at 45.32. So Woollaston applied the same rule to the restart of the frame as she would at beginning. The time did not restart the moment Mark started thinking about his next shot, which took about 20 seconds. That's the only other moment I would consider logical for restarting the timer, but it's not nearly enough to explain the gap of 39 seconds between the two times (85.20 vs. 84.41). 39 seconds earlier, at 44.54, the players had not yet reentered the arena. Renerpho (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For completeness: The video starts 1-2 seconds before the break-off, but that's irrelevant for the final time (it just means the break happened 1-2 seconds earlier than I said). Renerpho (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed explanation of this. It does seem that it's all a bit of a mystery as regards the 39-second discrepancy, but shows the sense in not trying to give the time down to the last second. As I said, this may come into play in future if there's another frame of, say, 85 minutes and 10 seconds -- then there would be a debate over which lo credit as the longest. For the time being, though, it makes sense just to round the time to 85 minutes. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect Clive Everton will discuss in depth when Snooker Scene comes out. It is important what the time was - but not to this article. All that really matters is that there was a record broken and it was almost an hour and a half long. If it was the shortest frame, then seconds would probably be important. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Funny enough, the record for the shortest frame in Snooker history, held by Tony Drago, is only known to the minute (3 minutes). There is no TV footage of it (being played at a minor tournament in 1988), and nobody seems to have bothered to note what the exact time was down to the second. Thanks for the help! Renerpho (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's proper silly! 3 minutes 31 for a century though! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ World Snooker Tour [@WeAreWST] (April 23, 2022). "85 minutes, 22 seconds. Yan Bingtao wins the longest Crucible frame of all time. He leads 12-10, one more for victory" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  2. ^ Tatiana Woollaston [@tatiana_referee] (April 23, 2022). "Longest frame in the Crucible history and every minute of it was so gripping I was on the edge of my marker's seat" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  3. ^ Rolf Kalb [@Rolf_Kalb] (April 23, 2022). "Ich habe die Zahl aus dem Tweet von World Snooker übernommen und was mir auchg gesagt wurde. Aber es passiert öfter in so besonderen Fällen, dass die Zeit nachträglich noch korrigiert wird" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

O'Sullivan v. Allen, re-rack

Should we mention the unusual re-rack that took place in frame 3 of the match O'Sullivan v. Allen?[1] During the live broadcast, the Eurosport commentators questioned whether this was against the rules, since no "stale mate" position had been reached.[12] Renerpho (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not? It seems that the rerack took place to save the referee the trouble of replacing all the balls after a miss was called, which is not the purpose. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was certainly unusual. I don't think it went against the purpose of the rule though. To quote the rulebook: If the referee thinks a position of stalemate exists, or is being approached, or is indicated by both players, the referee shall offer the players the immediate option of restarting the frame. (Section 3 Rule 17)[13] The word or is important here. Both players agreed and approached the referee, which means a rerack was possible. It was my impression that most viewers (certainly those in attendance) agreed that they made the right call. Of course, the alternative would have been to watch the referee put back balls for 15 minutes, and I don't think the audience is impartial when presented with the choice... Renerpho (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reading my last comment again, I wonder whether the rule is ambiguous. Does "or is being approached" mean "or [if a stalemate] is being approached", or does it mean "or [if the referee] is being approached"? English isn't my native language, so if any native speakers (with a good grasp of semantic nuances) could evaluate what I wrote above, that would be nice. Renerpho (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Not that it matters much in the end, I guess, because the rule gives the referee and the players full authority over what constitutes a "position of stalemate". Renerpho (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally we try not to cite directly to commentary teams - simply because there is no fact checking involved, and have no way to revoke info. If it's particularly important, surely someone has written this to prose (maybe the Eurosport live text, or it might appear in Snooker Scene next month). Citing to a broadcast for something quite bland isn't my favourite way to deal with this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I can't find any sources that discuss whether this was against the rules or not, so I think we should leave that out, and concentrate on the facts (the unusual rerack). Renerpho (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - the wording means "[if a stalemate] is being approached". ie, if the referee thinks that a stalemate is near they can say 're-rack'. It almost never happens, usually the players mutually agree - but I have seen one instance where the ref said (paraphrase) "if nothing happens soon, it'll be a re-rack" - but then the players agreed anyway. 148.64.28.90 (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sharland, Pete (22 April 2022). "'Most extraordinary!' – Mark Allen agrees to re-rack against Ronnie O'Sullivan to save referee brutal clear up". eurosport.com.

Metro as a source?

I've been told previously that we can't cite Metro (metro.co.uk) as a source because it's considered untrustworthy. However, most of Metro's snooker coverage comes from Phil Haigh, co-host of the Talking Snooker podcast, who is a reliable and informed commentator on the game. He previously wrote for Eurosport, Bleacher Report, and The Guardian. Is there any way to appeal the decision that we can't cite Haigh's articles just because they appear in Metro? HurricaneHiggins (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! As far as I know, metro.co.uk is not blacklisted, so we can discuss it on the talk page, to see if an exception is warranted. Avoiding Metro may be a good guideline; but if following a guideline means that we can't do our work, we should
WP:IGNORE it. Would you mind giving the link that you haven't been able to add? Also, please don't forget to sign your posts, HurricaneHiggins. Thanks! Renerpho (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I've actually thought about this before.
WP:RSN would be a good place for this; describing that there could be reliability for sports widely excepted, or simply just those by Haigh. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks, Lee. I do think there's a strong case to be made for the reliability of Metro's snooker coverage, especially the pieces by Haigh. But I'm entirely unfamiliar with how to navigate any bureaucratic processes on Wikipedia. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Give me a little time and I'll start a thread. Bureaucracy is the only thing I have left! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry -- signed it! Thank you! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See
WP:RSN#Sport at the Metro. Hopefully helpful. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you! Much appreciated. Am heading away for the weekend but enjoy the rest of the World Championship :-) HurricaneHiggins (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too long?

Personally I'd be against splitting. One option would be to combine the Qualifying section with the Qualifying draw (ie move it down the article) which would mean the more important stuff was earlier in the article. Nigej (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a little hasty.
WP:SIZE has 10,000 words as the suitable limit for articles to be before they need to have a little split. The article was actually below that when the tag was added. Naturally when the event is over, a bit of a cull of some of the less important parts of the summary will happen for ease of reading, and as words are taken out after a copyedit. I don't really see that there's much need for a split or reorder. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

It was a little too quick indeed; we're still adding more to the article as the final sessions take place. I would at least wait until the tournament has finished before seeing what needs to be condensed, but at the moment I don’t think it’s a big problem anyways. IsaacAndHisIsaac (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag, as we are still a few words short of meeting the threshold, as well as the reasons above. I do think it needs a bit of a cull, it does go into probably overkill in terms of detail, but it's not at the place of a split. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have done a lot of tightening and shortening. See what you think now. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks very good, you've almost split the article by half! On that note - you might be aware I usually try and get these articles to
WP:FA. When the event is done, do you mind if I put the wheels in motion to get these articles up the quality scale? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you, Lee! And yes, absolutely, please do get the wheels in motion on that. Much appreciated! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Highest break?

By comparison with 2017 World Snooker Championship, should Graeme Dott's maximum be listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.40.23 (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rules have changed since 2017, now qualifying centuries are worth the same as main stage centuries. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See https://wst.tv/more-announcements-from-barry-hearn/ from May 2019: "High break prizes will go up next season, and there will be no discrepancy between the qualifying rounds and final stages in terms of breaks counting for the high break prize." Nigej (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top 25

Congratulations to all the editors who've contributed to this article. 500,000 hits in a week is quite an achievement. I see Ronnie got nearly 400,000 hits in one day (Monday) so I assume he'll be in next week's list. https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=1&range=latest-30&pages=2022_World_Snooker_Championship%7CWorld_Snooker_Championship%7CRonnie_O%27Sullivan%7CJudd_Trump Nigej (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's pretty amazing. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Betfred's last sponsorship of the WSC

It's been mentioned in a few places now, but we have at least 2 different sources -- both of which are relatively authoritative -- confirming that this was the last time that Betfred will be sponsoring the tournament. Those sources being Betfred themselves in their "special report" video on YouTube, and Dave Hendon via his podcast. Now obviously we can't predict the future, however the wiki should -- in my mind -- operate on the basis that anything authoritative stated at the time should be considered fact until such a time that a new source (that is considered authoritative) makes the fact untrue. With that in mind, we should come to consensus on how to phrase the fact that, at the current moment, Betfred is no longer the sponsor of the WSC and that the 2022 edition was their last one. Discussion is welcome on this. --CitroenLover (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the appropriate place to mention this would seem to be at World Snooker Championship#Sponsorship rather than on the 2022 tournament page. I also (as we discussed) have an issue with stating that this is their "last year" of sponsoring the event — as we don't know whether they will return as a sponsor in future years. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts from @Nigej: or @Lee Vilenski: on the above? Also we have precedent for specifying this type of text, such as the 2022 Masters. In my opinion, which is probably biased, it's not our place to determine if and when a sponsor will come back as we describe factual information on wiki pages. The here and now is that Betfred is no longer involved in the tournament as a sponsor, and we should take the stance that it is indefinite, until otherwise an announcement is made by WST/the sponsor to say they are coming back. --CitroenLover (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd never cite either of these places. If the WST announced a new sponsor, then maybe? I don't think it's particularly relevant at this time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WST have confirmed cazoo as the new sponsor, and considering its a multi-year deal, its unlikely betfred will return any time soon, or even at all CitroenLover (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why we would comment on it about this article, to be honest. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It feels like something relatively notable when a long running sponsor is suddenly not the sponsor any more imo. Sure, if Betfred did it just once, its not really that notable, but they've been around snooker since 2009 in some capacity as a sponsor, which is a pretty long time these days compared to the days pre-2006 when sponsorships were lasting multiple decades. In the case of Betfred, there was no warning that they were being cut out of snooker, so it feels like something we should be mentioning, even if its just four words imo. -- CitroenLover (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have no details that they are no longer sponsoring the snooker, just that they will not be sponsoring the 2023 World Snooker Championship. I don't think seven years is particularly a big deal, and is probably worth mentioning on next year's event and the World Snooker Championship article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "for the last time" wording from the lead (again) on the basis that (a) We can't predict the future -- Betfred could return as a sponsor for a future WC, and (b) a change of sponsor for the 2023 event has nothing to do with the topic of the article. That should go in the 2023 article, as Lee Vilenski recommends. As it stands, the article states that Betfred sponsored the 2022 tournament, which is verifiable info. Anything we can say about Betfred's relationship with the WST going forward would be unverified conjecture at this point, and would not be appropriate for this article in any case. The World Snooker Championship article has a section on sponsorship and that would seem to me to be the appropriate place to discuss sponsorship deals for the tournament. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "for the last time" is surely inappropriate. Nigej (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that gambling/betting companies are going to be regulated and probably banned from sponsoring anything in sports [see: football] in the future, there’s a very limited to no chance that Betfred would renew their sponsorship with snooker, but as we operate on consensus, i’ll simply leave this issue alone, but i don’t agree with the arguments provided against having something like this in a page. CitroenLover (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for respecting the consensus view here. Unfortunately, it's the case that all information entered into an article has to be verifiable, which leaves no room for speculating about what "probably" will happen with regards to betting companies sponsoring snooker tournaments. If a ban on betting sponsorship does indeed come into effect, as happened with tobacco sponsorship previously, that can of course be noted — the 2005 WC article notes that that year's tournament was the last sponsored by Embassy — but the situation is still evolving at the moment, and we can't make speculative statements that are not verified and trustworthy. AFAIK, betting companies are still involved with sponsoring tournaments (e.g., the BetVictor Series) and it's not illegal under current law. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Hog Farm Talk 15:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:2022 World Snooker Championship/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 04:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'm surprised this has gone so long without anyone picking it up. I'll review it at some point over the next few days. Hog Farm Talk 04:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "that no seeded player from a home nations country was aged under 30." - I think this needs some clarification. Is "home nations" a grouping of countries, or is it a reference to the hosting nation of a tournament?
  • "Pagett was criticised after footage showed him not declaring a foul shot" - I think you need to link foul shot to the cuesports glossary
  • " Murphy stated that Trump had "made far too many mistakes" and had "a horrific night in front of him" after the first day's play" - why is what Murphy said about Trump particularly significant to mention here? This sounds (to my American mind) like routine trash talk
    • Well, if it had been trash talk, that would have been very notable as we are talking about a sport where play in a full on suit and now tie and can get a fine for not having smart enough shoes. But, Murphy was acting as a pundit when he said that, basically reiterating that after the morning session Trump needed to play a lot better on the evening session. I have added a word or two to this effect Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with Bulgarian referee Desislava Bozhilova officiating her first world semi-final." - is there not a better source for this than a tweet? If the tweeter is Brendan Moore (snooker referee) it would be okay for sourcing, but that seems like an odd source for that statement
    • That's the guy! Yeah, I'd prefer a better source, but it's not something that is usually commented on outside of finals. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other sources look fine
  • Images look fine

Placing on hold, shouldn't take much to get this good to go for GA. Hog Farm Talk 01:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_World_Snooker_Championship&oldid=1196926072"