Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:SNOOKER)
Shortcut

Archives (Index)

Texaco International Charity Snooker Challenge

[edit]

A report in the September 1995 issue of Pot Black magazine says that Allison Fisher defeated Dieter Johns (187 points to 20; including a 107 break), Peter Ebdon, and then John Parrott 254-116 in the final, to retain the Texaco International Charity Snooker Challenge title. Jimmy White, Steve Davis, Terry Griffiths, Willie Thorne, amateur Mark Davis (or Davies) were the other participants in 1995. Len Ganley was the referee and David Vine presented the prizes? Has anyone seen this event in any other sources? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Have you seen this? It's a "fansite" so I'm not sure if you can use it for a citation.  Alan  (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eurosport becomes TNT

[edit]

Now that Eurosport has become TNT, any citations we have that point to www.eurosport.com will be redirected to www.tntsports.co.uk. Some of these redirects work OK, and some don't. For those that give a "404" error, we will need to change |url-status=live to |url-status=dead, assuming the citation has an archive. I've already done a couple, but there are loads more to do. For those Eurosport citations without archives, we are, I think, stumped. The "Wayback Machine" behaves in the same way (geoblocking) with TNT articles that it did with Eurosport. But "Ghost Archive" works OK with such articles.  Alan  (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AlH42 eurosport.com will only redirect to tntsports.co.uk when someone views the site from the UK and Ireland: elsewhere, it will still continue to operate as is. We don't really need to migrate the citations, beyond archiving as needed, but there is probably an exercise that could be done to move away from using Eurosport links as a verifiable source in most cases due to all the geoblocking issues and loss of access to these sources anyway (eg if there is an article in the Metro talking about the same stuff as a Eurosport article, replace the citation with a link to the Metro article instead). --CitroenLover (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should stop using Eurosport/TNT unless it is absolutely necessary. However, the Metro is not regarded as a reliable source. Better to use the BBC, the Guardian etc.  Alan  (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is: the BBC and Guardian barely report on snooker tournaments [I have hardly ever seen the Guardian reporting on snooker, would like a link to see their reporting]: indeed the BBC will only really actively report on their own tournaments and then the odd daily round-up for random tournaments, and even then, sometimes their reporting is from other regions' reporters [see: Richard Petrie doing daily reports on the Scottish Open which were completely focused on Mark Allen and nobody else]. If we want to use snooker sources, totallysnookered.com and snookerhq.com may be better sources if we're forbidden from using the Metro. I also don't know why we don't allow Metro links when its in the context of the snooker reporting, as Phil Haigh does an excellent job interviewing players and the like, it feels like we are intentionally restricting ourselves from a source that is quite actively involved in following the sport. --CitroenLover (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Guardian does do snooker from time to time. See this for example. I think totallysnookered.com and snookerhq.com are regarded as "fansites" and should therefore be avoided. We, unfortunately, need to rely very much on the WST.  Alan  (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...and we're not forbidden from using the Metro, it's just not regarded as reliable. See this.  Alan  (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the Metro's snooker coverage is from Phil Haigh, a respected snooker journalist who co-hosts the Talking Snooker podcast. Whatever about the rest of the Metro, his snooker articles should always be regarded as reliable information. I've found far more mistakes in BBC articles than in his pieces in the Metro. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...and delving a little deeper, the Metro is (apparently) OK to use for snooker. See this.  Alan  (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re totallysnookered.com and snookerhq.com, these are run by journalists, not fans, its just a different way of reporting on the sport than traditional mediums. That being said, rarely is there anything unique on those sites, but they should be used alongside other sources as well.
as for Metro, if that source is allowed, then yes we should be making an effort to use it as much as is feasible. —CitroenLover (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine - anything that gets us to stop using Eurosport/TNT is OK with me.  Alan  (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My personal view is that SnookerHQ is run by a journalist and I have very little worries about it's quality and editorial influence. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Returning to the Eurosport/TNT problem (although the discussion about the Metro is interesting), we really do need to "migrate the citations" as I would think that the majority of readers of our articles are in the United Kingdom and Ireland, for whom these citations will not now work.  Alan  (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - @Lee Vilenski may be able to advise on the best way for us to migrate as many Eurosport citations as we can, perhaps it will require a bot, but may require a lot of manual work on the part of editors. — CitroenLover (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's about "migrating" as such. All that is needed is to change the |url-status parameter from live to dead for those ones that don't now work. For those without archives, I think we are screwed.  Alan  (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IABot (and it's associated meta talk page) is the solution. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out to be less of a problem than I had originally thought.
I have checked through the Maximum break, Century break, and Snooker articles and have made a few changes to the citations as appropriate. I have also checked through all of the tournament articles for the current season and only found two changes that needed to be made, one in the Masters, and one in the German Masters.
Now that the consensus seems to be that it's OK to use the Metro and snookerhq.com for snooker references, I have replaced a couple of Eurosport citations with ones from and Phil Haigh and David Caulfield.
Can we please stop using Eurosport/TNT in favour of the other resources identified.  Alan  (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: @Lee Vilenski could you advise if theres a page [perhaps the wpsnooker project page?] we can put up a notice about how there should be a preference to using any other source if possible, so as to avoid Eurosport/TNT being linked in snooker srticles? I dont think we have an easy-to-find list of approved sources for snooker pages, and it would be good to document them [as well as banned sources and reasons why]. CitroenLover (talk) 10:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...and I have now checked all the Eurosport/TNT citations for the 2023–24 season, and they all [sort-of] work. This check has highlighted yet another reason why Eurosport/TNT should be avoided: in many cases they change the title (and content) of the page after we have cited it, so that for ones which have been archived the archive is completely different to the current page. I know that the BBC and WST also do this, but to a much lesser extent.  Alan  (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No 2025 Players' Championship article?

[edit]

I realise that we're pretty short on active editors for the pages and that we're all probably super busy with IRL commitments, but it still surprises me that -- with just 2.5 days to go until the 2025 Players' Championship begins, and with a couple of weeks until the Tour Championship -- we have no page for either event. I know I've spoken to one editor who occasionally edits here, and I can understand the reason why people may not have the time or interest in making pages, but I do think we need to look at a solution for the future, as otherwise we could get into a situation where a season is half way through and the majority of articles are simply not made. Unfortunately, with standards changing all the time, I'm pretty hesitant to make the stub article myself, but hopefully posting this may spur any of our editors to create the necessary page about this tournament. --CitroenLover (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... even the 2024–25 snooker world rankings page isn't there. There's definitely a loss of active editors in snooker recently. In the long term I think setting up pages for all these stats every year aren't that sustainable anymore. Maybe we should move to a single article that only shows the latest rankings / stats in the future, just like other sports articles do. TheVictoriaHarbourer (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should probably just bring the creation of the per-season world ranking pages to a close: they add no real value to the wiki (they're just a list of stats tbh), and all that information is sorted and archived on places like snooker.org, with the associated cut off points available there as well. --CitroenLover (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spot on. Player's rankings can go to the Snooker world rankings article; Tournament seedings and cut-offs can be moved to the snooker season pages. TheVictoriaHarbourer (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been off with some health issues. Don't be surprised that articles are not created. At the end of the day, the project is voluntary. I do find that once someone does the initial stub, it tends to get updated.
I see that 2025 Players Championship (snooker) was eventually created, so that's good.
On the world rankings articles - there's no issue with them existing, and equally there's no real issue with an article not existing. I do like the historical ranking lists as they do show how the rankings worked and can be linked directly from target articles, but I'm sure they are a lot of work to put together. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Lee, sorry to hear that you've had health issues and hopefully everything is trending in a positive direction now :)
I would tend to agree that while there's no issue with them existing or not, there is also no issue in reviewing whether it is a good use of editor time to create and maintain them, especially as the number of editors decreases over time: as you said, this is completely voluntary, but larger projects like the snooker world rankings page do really need someone to "take ownership" of them, or they are unlikely to be made. In the past, it was relatively trivial to get cut-off points because they were documented online (either the WST or WPBSA website had it pretty visible), but for the most part, they are no longer being made public -- to my knowledge -- so cut off points are basically going to end up being OR, outside of defined cut-offs to either enter events (Players Series or Shanghai Masters) or secure a Top 16 place in the Triple Crown events. That being said, any changes to policy or conventions would need community consensus. --CitroenLover (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I know, this is probably the best for seeding cutoffs. [1] Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the season is drawing to a close I think we should put some of our discussions into action. Appreciate @Andygray110 for creating the 2024-25 snooker world rankings article, but in the long run, especially considering the activeness of snooker related editors and the workload of compiling all the ranking data each season, should we start moving towards a regular update in Snooker world rankings article instead of creating every ranking list and reference points every year (or do both)? @CitroenLover @Lee Vilenski Also it would be good to check someone's rant below. TheVictoriaHarbourer (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 24/25 Calendar with cutoff dates is available online: [2] TheVictoriaHarbourer (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As is the re-ranking points list: [3] Andygray110 (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheVictoriaHarbourer @Andygray110 thanks for these links, but curious how you found them? I don't think these were actively linked anywhere on the WST website, so am interested to know where they were linked for you to find them. --CitroenLover (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are both in this link from June 2024: [4]. Can't see if WST has included them anywhere else. Andygray110 (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

[edit]

Hi, I ran the earwig app on Jimmy White yesterday and got a very high match for the lead section. I rewrote a lot of the lead just last week and this website here [5] appears to have just copy and pasted the lead from wikipedia onto its website. It looks like they've done the same thing with Mark Selby and John Higgins and perhaps others. Curiously, I ran earwig on John Higgins page but it didn't pick this page up. The page looks poor in general, it's title is 'Snookers from United Kingdom'. How big a problem is this if the page is put in for GA review in a few weeks time? Thanks for any advice. Canary757 (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Canary757. A GA or FA will evaluate the quality of the relevant article. Copied material is only an issue if an editor has cut and pasted material into Wikipedia without attribution, or quoted too much material from copyrighted sources that might breach fair use. In this particular case, someone has copied material from Wikipedia and used it on another website, which is not something Wikipedia editors can control. The creators of that website have probably breached the relevant Creative Commons license — but that's an issue for their site, not our articles. I don't see how any of this would affect the outcome of a review. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia allows other websites to copy any or all of its data provided it is attributed. If it isn't, there's still little we can do. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker articles being taken off-topic

[edit]

A new editor (or at least new to me), TheVictoriaHarbourer (TVH) has taken to restructuring several articles—and IMO—is increasingly taking them off-topic. For example, the World Snooker Tour is a tight little article that provides a concise overview of the structure of the tour. However, TVH added a winners section, which can be seen here: [6]. This section was somewhat arbitrary (why has the Saudi tournament been singled out?) and detracts from the topic. Personally, I think it was a backwards step as it doesn't further the reader's understanding of the tour structure, and replicates information that is more comprehensively covered at Triple Crown (snooker). Moreover, it also creates a time drain because the article then has to be updated after each tournament whereas before it only needed to updated annually.

Another example is the Snooker world rankings article. Again, the purpose of this article was to provide a concise overview of how the rankings work, what their purpose is and some brief history. Its function was categorically not to provide a list of rankings tournaments and a points schedule (both of which are provided at the dedicated season articles such as 2024–25 snooker season). However, TVH added a list of tournaments and the winner's prize fund to the article: [7]. I honestly don't see how this furthers a readers understanding of how the rankings work.; it's just more replication of content that is done better elsewhere and something else that will need to be regularly updated.

Personally, I think the suite of snooker articles works better when there is minimal replication, and I think the articles are stronger when they are kept concise and on-topic. I don't think this content duplicating approach (especially with content that needs to be regularly updated) is a positive step for the articles. I think it creates a lot of white noise for the reader if I'm honest, because the reader is perfectly capable of looking up a list of tournaments or winners if that is what the came to Wikipedia for. I intend to take a closer look at TVH's recent editing history, but before I do I would like to get a sense of what the snooker project thinks. There is no point in me rowing against the tide of opinion if other snooker editors think these edits are a positive direction for the articles. Betty Logan (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with everything you say here, @Betty Logan. I'm very opposed to this replication of content across pages in ways that just create confusion and create more work for those maintaining them. We should be going in the opposite direction of streamlining and simplifying as much as possible. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Betty Logan Good to see you here, but I really hoped you'd seen the other topics in this talk page first. I am comparatively new, sure, 'cause I didn't register an account for any edits before; but the problem also lies within — we are having fewer and fewer editors, especially the new ones, in the field of snooker.
The 2025 Players Championship has started on 17 March, yet there's no one creating the article. Someone brings the issue here, and ultimately it's me who did that. The lack of active editors also sparked the conversation in that thread - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker#c-CitroenLover-20250318175800-TheVictoriaHarbourer-20250317161100 - as we deemed the annual records are not sustainable in the long run. The 2024-25 snooker rankings page has literally only been created just a few days back - it wasn't even there for the most if not all the season. It is an initiative from us to move away from the current model and will be only showing the current rankings instead in the Snooker world rankings page in the future, in line with other sports ranking pages. Tennis, badminton, etc., no one does that like us before. I am due to include the current world rankings in that page and that should be the main page for people to learn about the rankings instead.
The same thing goes with the World Snooker Tour page. Many global sports tournaments - ATP Tour, PGA Tour, etc. did not only include a "a concise overview of the structure of the tour". They record everything about the tour itself, especially the all-time winners. Why would someone not want to know about the biggest winners in the tour when checking out that page? As for the Saudi inclusion, I'll say it again - it was first written as a seperate article by someone else as "Snooker major tournaments". I have consulted the editors of that article without objection to merge it into the WST page. Please treat WikiProject Snooker as any other major sport would and create more comprehensive yet integrated articles instead of fragmented, enthusiast-based, and inactively managed ones. Thank you. TheVictoriaHarbourer (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the big issue is that we already have that info in another location. Realistically, the year by year ranking lists are suitable. I'm not sure moving the rankings to the main WST page is a benefit, we should absolutely have articles on the Tour each season. If there is a topic that hasn't yet been created, feel free to do so, don't just change where that info is being held. Just because something doesn't exist right now, doesn't mean we have to change the structure.
Some prose on who has won events and the like is probably warranted, but why a table? You could have lots of different tables for all sorts of items.
In terms of the Saudi event, it ISN'T a Triple Crown event. We shouldn't be trying to suggest it is. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Lee Vilenski. I do agree with you about the articles each season for the tour. I have no intention to move that away. What I do like to do is create a concise, up-to-date ranking list "highlight" in the Snooker world ranking article as well. Then the annual rankings page could be utilised as a complementary, more detailed article. Just like I said this year's 2024-25 snooker world rankings page was only created days ago - if the main world ranking article does include a simple rankings list then it can easily fill up the vacuum for most of the readers. Plus not everyone is into those detailed cut-offs and reference points - they just want to know who's the current top 16 or something. TheVictoriaHarbourer (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski I can also agree on not having a big table in the WST article that overlaps with the info in the Triple Crown article as well. But now after @Betty Logan's deletion there's zero mentions about the players in the tour. At least mentioning some all-time winners in the tour in that article makes a lot more sense.
As for the Saudi event, it is because of WST's official introduction of the term "major tournaments", which is Triple Crown plus Saudi. @Crows22 created the page back in 2024. Personally I don't like the Saudi inclusion as well, but 1) it's officially being called that way, and 2) The prize money really matches the WC on the same level. I think we should see if other editors have different opinions about that first, and I am happy to not include them for now. After all I really just transferred the table to the WST article and that's all. TheVictoriaHarbourer (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[8] TheVictoriaHarbourer (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have just taken care of that problem by redirecting Snooker major tournaments to the Triple Crown article. Technically there is no reason for it to exist because snooker doesn't have "majors". The WST does not mention players because it is not about the players, it is about the structure of the tour. Articles work best when they are about one specific topic and remain focused on that topic. I have no objection to the creation of articles or the addition of content to existing articles provided it is encyclopedic, but as HurricaneHiggins states above, the snooker articles would be better served by being streamlined i.e. duplication needs to be kept to a minimum. Betty Logan (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you think that there's a duplication between the "Major winners list" and the "Triple Crown winners list". But there should be a difference between "do not duplicate lists" and "completely no mentioning about players allowed". I can make a more simplified, less triple crown-focused description.
Also I must emphasise the fact that the WST isn't barely a "structure" - it was back in pre-2010 when it's just a collective term for WPBSA events; But WST is now a full-fledged organisation and a brand as well. P.S. Please take a look at PGA Tour#Career money leaders, SVNS#Player_records and UCI World Tour#Wins by cyclist. It is very normal to mention players in sports tour articles. TheVictoriaHarbourer (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, sources also refers to all ranking tournaments as "majors". Here's the German Masters [9], Welsh Open [10], etc.
This is to distance itself from the "minor ranking events". There's also much more sources referring to the Tour Championship as a "fourth major". Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WST is now referring to "snooker's four majors," i.e., the Triple Crown events plus the Saudi Arabia Snooker Masters. Example here. As for "minor ranking events," I thought those didn't exist anymore? HurricaneHiggins (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Minor ranking tournaments no longer exist on the WST, the last remnants of those have dropped off the calendar (that being the Gibraltar Open). As for "majors", nobody is seriously buying that the "Saudi Arabia Snooker Masters" is a major on the same league as the Triple Crown events, since it has no history and its only claim to that title is "because it offers the same prize as the World Championship", but for less frames played, and consequently it is just marketing from them to make it more relevant. As said, most players would probably consider the Tour Championship to be a fourth major because its multi-session matches at every round and features very few players, thus making it more elite by design.
I think the arguments around what is and isn't a major is pointless though. We can mention that World Snooker Tour has "unilaterally decided" the Saudi Arabia Snooker Masters with a source for that, but there is nothing wrong with us including contrary comments to that with sources stating that other tournaments are deemed more of a major than the SASM tournament. IMO, the only "majors" nowadays are the Triple Crown Series, as these are the only tournaments which have consistently been on the WST calendar since 1975, whereas various other tournaments have come and gone. And if the rumours that were reported on by the Daily Express are true (don't intend to link the article here, but if you google for a recent article from them about tv rights, you'll find it), there are more pressing things to talk about than what is and isn't a major. --CitroenLover (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, they also said the Tour Championship was "snookers fourth major" a few years back. It's hardly defined like the Triple Crown. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski @CitroenLover how about making a section about the "fourth major", its history and debates under the Triple Crown / WST article? Then we can put all of them in it and letting the readers decide how serious should they take about it.
Also the WST just doubled down on the "fourth major" claim -- ..."Now firmly established as the sport’s ‘fourth major’"... -- what. the heck. [11] TheVictoriaHarbourer (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an issue with having a section pulling together the pieces of information about "the fourth major" on a page, perhaps it should be on the Triple Crown page since those are historically deemed as majors (due to them being on the BBC, and are the longest running events), but we could use the {{Excerpt}} template to bring a part of the Triple Crown page into World Snooker Tour without actually having to duplicate information onto multiple pages.
And yes, WST doubling down on calling the Saudi crap "the fourth major" makes me puke. It cannot possibly be called a major after just one edition and practically no crowds: arguably the International Championship and Tour Championship have better claims to that title than the Saudi rubbish. -- CitroenLover (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't really care what the WST says about itself. We care what secondary sources say Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Repeat something often enough and the secondary sources will also begin to say it! "Saudi Arabia Masters to become snooker’s ‘fourth major’ with £2m prize fund" -- from the Independent. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Classic case of WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia's coverage should take a long-term view rather than reflecting recent trends. At the moment the idea of "majors" looks like a branding exercise that WST is trying to push. I note the Indie puts "fourth major" in quotes and then later clarifies that is WST's wording, not theirs. Snooker doesn't have majors, unless the context is major and minor ranking events. The triple crown is an enduring feature of the sport's history, and one of the yardsticks for measuring greatness (along with the number of WCs, total number of ranking titles and length of time spent as #1). The Saudi Masters is not afforded any special status by any of those metrics. We shouldn't indulge it IMO. These tournaments in the Middle East tend to run for a few years and then get canned. Betty Logan (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, @Betty Logan. Snooker has begun mirroring golf — wanting four "majors", and this year introducing a Champions Dinner before the World Championship to mirror the traditions of the Masters Tournament in Augusta. This reeks of envy and only turns snooker into a "wannabe" sport IMO. That said, the number of ranking events on the calendar is now up to 18, more than twice as many as the sport had in the 80s and 90s, while bigger invitational events like the Masters, Shanghai Masters, and Champion of Champions push the number of tournaments on the calendar to over 20. So-called minor-ranking events were scrapped after 2016, and so now everything is classified as a ranking event, even the Shoot Out. Many casual viewers simply aren't aware of all these events, hence the understandable desire by the media to differentiate between genuinely prestigious tournaments and the Hodunk Grand Prix. But mirroring golf terminology isn't the answer either. And I agree with taking non-established tournaments with a pinch of salt. Recently we had much fanfare around the Turkish Masters, which was held once and then disappeared. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025–26 snooker season

[edit]

Hi there. Now that the World Championship is over, it would be nice to have an article on the following season. There's a draft for it here. I added the calendar for the main tour, but it would be nice if the other sections could be completed as well. Just in case somebody is interested. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it up a bit and made it live. Great work. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lee Vilenski! Hopefully someone will add the info for the World Women's Snooker Tour, the World Seniors Tour and the Q Tour as well. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alavense at the moment, we are just waiting for the various tours to announce what tournaments are being played next season. At the moment, we only have knowledge of the dates for the Home Nations, British Open, Champion of Champions, Triple Crown and the Tour Championship events, and nothing else whatsoever. The information will be added once the various tours actually announce the 2025-26 snooker season. --CitroenLover (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, CitroenLover! Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I tend to think getting something that has some info is better than no info. It'll be updated as the sources become available. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Alavense! Is there a quick and easy way to create stub articles for tournaments once they are announced and added to the calendar? HurricaneHiggins (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker&oldid=1290185996"