User talk:HurricaneHiggins

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as

Thanks so much! I've made some edits to the draft blurb. Delighted to see this scheduled to appear. All best HurricaneHiggins (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May songs

my story today

Thank you today for 2022 World Snooker Championship, "about the 2022 edition"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Pentecost was full of music, and my story today is that 300 years ago today, Bach became Thomaskantor, with BWV 75, writing music history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ad:Si Jiahui

Hi. I see we had a conflicting edit or two 😉. If your are done(?) I wanted to add a bit early life and start translation of the article. Cheers, Nux (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nux Sorry about that! Go for it -- I am done now. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and thanks for the info. Nux (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 May 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2023 World Snooker Championship, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 02:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hurricane Higgins, it's been a few months. I've put an item up for GAN with you as a co-nom, I hope that's ok (you previously suggested it was, but thought I'd confirm). Would you be ok as being a co-nom on a FAC for 2022 Hong Kong Masters? It was such a big outlier in snooker I'd like to take it to FA. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all @Lee Vilenski. Happy to be GAN co-nominator on these articles and also for the FAC for the 2022 Hong Kong Masters. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you add Higgins runner-up finish to Judd Trump in the Huangguoshu open today please  ?. Trump won the final 5-1 Thanks 92.251.146.50 (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, another editor has added that information. 16:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

In the Class of '92 article that we have both been editing, the only data not included are the head-to-head details for the three players. I'm not sure if it's worth including as the data comes from CueTracker which is (wrongly IMO) banned, or how to present the information. The data I have is as follows:

• O'Sullivan v Higgins:
  • played 77
  • O'Sullivan won 39
  • Higgins won 35
  • drawn 3
• Higgins v Williams:
  • played 64
  • Higgins won 36
  • Williams won 24
  • drawn 4
• Williams v O'Sullivan
  • played 50
  • Williams won 13
  • O'Sullivan won 34
  • drawn 3
• Totals:
  • O'Sullivan won 73
  • Higgins won 71
  • Williams won 37
  • drawn 10
• Total matches 191

There is no easy way to confirm the data since the head-to-head system on snooker.org doesn't work anymore.

What do you think?  Alan  (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alan, thanks for digging up this data. Unfortunately, including it is likely to be contested if it comes from a banned source. Do you want to post in the WikiProject to get more opinions on whether people would accept this? HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pure stat-

WP:CRUFT

in my opinion. We aren't a statistics website.

There's plenty of reliable sources that talk about these three players, and even the titles they've won, but I doubt any care about win record. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think the article is about as good as it can be for now.  Alan  (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can suggest is potentially mentioning other players who have has similar longevity, and also sometimes mentioned in the same breath (Joe Perry when he won the Welsh, for example). I'd love for there to be more, but it's not something you want to just copy info from each of the players articles. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you changed the order of names with the tag "Use alphabetical order on first mention". Throughout the rest of the article they are ordered RonnieO-JohnH-MarkW, including the pictures and the tables, and they are pretty-much always referred to by the media in this order. So surely for consistency the first mention should also be in this order.  Alan  (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries ... I hadn't noticed that. I've changed it back! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think, after all your work, that this could be a "good article".  Alan  (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now here's some interesting data that might be added to the article. Have a look at the List of world number one snooker players. From 5 May 1998 to 1 May 2006 the trio almost took it in turns to be number one. That's a total of 7 years, 11 months and 26 days. Then Hendry had a year at the top spot. Then from 8 May 2007 to 26 September 2010 Higgins and O'Sullivan took it in turns again. This time for a total of 3 years, 4 months and 18 days. Then Robertson had three months at number one. Then Higgins and Williams took it in turns again from 13 December 2010 to 11 September 2011. Only 8 months and 29 days this time. Various others followed this (Selby, Trump, Robertson, Ding) until O'Sullivan was back at number one for four months in 2019. Trump and Selby then took it in turns until 4 April 2022 when O'Sullivan was back again and remains number one at present. I think that's quite astounding and should definitely get a mention. You are much better at text than I am (I like tables).  Alan  (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite incredible all right! I'll see if I can find a source for how long members of the Class of '92 have held the number one spot. Otherwise, it's likely to be flagged as original research? HurricaneHiggins (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be "original research" if it's already all there in the List of world number one snooker players?  Alan  (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! Actually, thinking about it, I think this is info that might be best presented in a table format? HurricaneHiggins (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think

WP:CALC applies here. I'll have a think about how to do it in a table, but I think text would be better.  Alan  (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Have a look in my sandbox. It's a "work-in-progress" but might be OK. I still think txt would be better.  Alan  (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this looks really good! Assuming you intend to extend it beyond 2006? I would suggest adding the table when you complete it. We can then add to the text the cumulative total time the Class of '92 have spent as world number one. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK – give me some time. I'm currently following the Brit Open Quali. And the WST live scores is a bit better (but not much).  Alan  (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No rush! :-) Hope you're enjoying the qualifiers. The new online scoring system is woeful. I don't know why they ever changed it. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's about as good as I can get it. Have a look in my sandbox. If you think it's OK then let me know and I'll copy it over.  Alan  (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great! Fantastic job! :-) HurricaneHiggins (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done!  Alan  (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, HurricaneHiggins. I saw that you were a co-nominator for this article, but the bot doesn't really handle things like that well, so I'll notify you myself. The review can be found here: Talk:2023 World Seniors Championship/GA1. ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @ArcticSeeress, thank you so much for taking the time to review this! Much appreciated. We'll address your comments soon. All best, HH HurricaneHiggins (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2023 World Seniors Championship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2023 World Seniors Championship for comments about the article, and Talk:2023 World Seniors Championship/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ArcticSeeress -- ArcticSeeress (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the undoing of your edits in the lead. I did a big source edit based on an old version of the page, which didn't have your edits on it. I wasn't looking to undo them myself. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no worries, thanks for explaining! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, HurricaneHiggins! The article you nominated, 2022 Hong Kong Masters, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Gog the Mild! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hurricane Higgins. Thank you for your recent edits to John Spencer (snooker player). This article is currently a Featured Article Candidate (myself and BennyOnTheLoose are co-nominators) and we're in the process of making changes per various comments received on the FAC page. I think we may be nearing the end of the FAC process and we would hope to have it cleared in a week or two. Would you be willing to contribute any further to the review, and possibly offer us your support if you think the article satisfies the criteria? In the meantime, I will look through the edits you made today and check they don't contradict anything already covered in the FAC. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodney Baggins No problem! I'll review the article within the next few days. Apologies if my edits contradict the FAC process, but if they do, feel free to revert. Hope you're doing well! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I will keep a lookout for any further comments you may have. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Nice to see you again. Not seen you in a while, been away from the site. I hope you are well. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Lee Vilenski! Good to see you too. I've been busy, but contributing here and there where I can. Good to see you too! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{

subst:User:Flaming/MC2008

}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Lee Vilenski! Hope you had a good Christmas! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HH, I hope you are well. I'd like to clear up the change I made to the Masters article - I'll draw your attention to a very obscure part of the MOS regarding numbers, which says:

Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32.

In this case, we said 14, then six and seven. Ideally this should be all the same type. I don't really have a preference either way, but I do find 14 easier to read than "fourteen". I've always read this to mean compatible numbers within a paragraph should be the same, but at the very least it should be internally consistent within a sentence.

Very easy to miss this part of the MOS as it does start with a rule of thumb that says small numbers in words. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, thanks for the explanation, Lee. I'll change it back to 6 and 7. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I did have to re-read the MOS myself as I knew it was this way around and even I couldn't find the specific bit that talked about it. It's no big deal, but always good to learn a bit more of the MOS. :) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I went through the article and fixed other spelled-out numbers for consistency. It's good to know about this rule as I always spelled out numbers under 10! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's only for items where it's the same information. So frames 7,8 and 15 is right, if it's not the same info, then it shouldn't be the same type. Things like second should always be in words. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Lee Vilenski. This is confusing. For instance, this sentence: "The second Triple Crown event of the 2023–24 snooker season, following the 2023 UK Championship and preceding the 2024 World Championship, the tournament is the 50th edition of the Masters, which was first held in 1975." Given that 50th is in numerals, I changed "second" to "2nd" to comply with the MOS. But then you said that "second" should always be spelled out? Given that MOS says "Comparable values nearby..." in most cases it's impossible to change one number without also changing the other numbers nearby for consistency. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree it is confusing. I've always thought it was. I can't really teach the MOS, it's far too vast especially on this matter, but I've only ever used the above for straight numbers, not those with -th or -ist on the end. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to know if the wiki snooker community is considering making a separate section/chart to list snooker players Senior Tour titles count as a whole new category instead of the current practice of listing it under the current 'Non-ranking titles'. I cannot see what justifies the recently finished, single-framed final match tournament - Mr Vegas Seniors 900 tournament being listed in the same category as The Masters or the Champion of Champions or Shanghai Masters etc., they are completely different in importance and difficulties and should not belong in the same category. Even listing World Seniors Championship title alongside The Masters or the Champion of Champions is unfitting. Obviously they are tremendously different in importance, some may argue they would trade dozens and dozens Senior titles to just one Masters. Having a separate category would make it easier for new fans of the sport to recognize the differences in these tournaments and grasp the weight of the achievements of the players. 2605:52C0:1001:260:E000:68FF:FEFE:D3BC (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. @Lee Vilenski may have thoughts. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I mean "non-ranking" also contains super low profile events like the Vienna Open or Pink Ribbon events in the same bracket as other non-ranking events. Personally, I don't know why we try to count non-ranking events, as having 20 small non-ranking events don't amass to winning the Masters or the like. As for having a seperate section, I'm not sure. Perhaps we should only mention professional titles, and then really notable non-ranking titles, which would include things like the seniors events and the national amateur titles. The issues you'll get would be with setting the inclusion criteria too low, and having John's bar's U25s handicap pairs or the like. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem I see too. Obviously, we want to register major non-ranking events like the Masters, Shanghai Masters, or Champion of Champions. But things can get out of control. E.g., see the Steve Davis bio listing 81 non-ranking finals. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Perhaps take this to

WT:SNOOKER Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Done! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2024 Masters (snooker), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after winning the 2024 Masters, Ronnie O'Sullivan is both the youngest and oldest winner of the tournament? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Masters (snooker). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2024 Masters (snooker)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wondered if you'd be interested in working on the World Women's Snooker Championship article with a view to nominating it for GA status? I've added some info there, which would benefit from better organisation and some copyediting. It might also need a bit of balancing in terms of coverage. The lead also needs doing. I'm happy to dig out sources. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benny, absolutely! Will take a look at it later today and we can start getting it into shape. :-) HurricaneHiggins (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Are you happy to be a co-nominator? I'm willing to reply to the GA review when it happens. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. Thank you! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work both. Were either of you aware we are on 199 cue sports GAs? This could be the one to push us over the edge. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know that, Lee, but it would certainly be great to get to 200! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]