Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Snooker This page is within the scope of WikiProject Snooker, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of snooker on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SnookerWikipedia:WikiProject SnookerTemplate:WikiProject SnookerSnooker

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Archives (Index)

2019/March 2019/April 2019/May 2019/June 2019/July 2019/August 2020/March 2020/April 2020/May 2020/June 2020/July 2020/August 2020/September 2020/October 2020/November 2020/December 2021/January 2021/February 2021/March 2021/April 2021/May 2021/June 2021/July 2021/August 2021/September 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/May 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/November 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/May 2023/September 2023/October 2023/November 2023/December 2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June 2024/July 2024/August 2024/September 2024/October 2024/November 2025/January 2025/February 2025/March 2025/May 2025/July 2025/August 2025/September 2025/October 2025/November

Hi all, I'm trying to use IABot to archive references, but when I click on "Fix a Single Page" under "Run Bot," I get this error:

Permission error

The action you are trying to perform requires the analyzepage permission.

This permission is obtainable with the following groups: basicuser, user, admin, root, bot

I've used IABot before and this has never happened to me previously. Anyone else experiencing this or know how to fix it or secure the required permissions? Thanks so much. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry HH, I've been away. Are you still having this issue? Sometimes IABot tries to log me out when I run it, which could cause this Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, @Lee Vilenski, I just saw your message. Yes, unfortunately, I am still having this issue. I've tried logging out and back in again, but it still persists. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] All I can suggest is opening up a phab ticket for this. It really isn't ideal. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 19:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)[reply]

Even though we’re a long way feom the start of the 2026-27 snooker season, I’d like to suggest that a stub article be created for the next season because we already have dates for several tournaments and the expectation of the China Open returning next season as well. —CitroenLover (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @CitroenLover. I'd fully support this idea. In reality, we are less than 7 months away from the start of the next season, which I don't regard as too early. I created stub articles for the 2025–26 tournaments before the season started, and so far I believe that's working out fairly well, as it allows information to be added as it becomes available — as opposed to a situation the previous season where some articles were being created at the very last minute. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @HurricaneHiggins i agree, a stub page is better than no page, and people can update it when new information comes to light. We know some information is likely to stay the same but we can update if things change. If you want to prep a stub page for the season with the info we know, go for it —CitroenLover (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Will do, @CitroenLover ... I'll take a look at this over the next few days. :) HurricaneHiggins (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Generally, the requirement is simply that we have enough sourcing that says events are happening and when. If we have a rough calendar, that's probably plenty for a stub to exist Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, @Lee Vilenski. Looking at WST calendar for the 2026-27 season, it has five events already confirmed (2026 British Open, 2026 English Open, 2026 Northern Ireland Open, 2026 UK Championship, and 2027 Masters), which is a start. That said, I've had a look at the season page, and it's a bit beyond my Wikipedia editing knowledge with all the tables and other formatting. That kind of page creation is not my strength. Anyone with those kind of skills willing to take this on? Even if it's a stub that could be expanded later? HurricaneHiggins (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @HurricaneHiggins Unfortunately I have no time spare to be able to work on this now, but you could always create a draft page in your user space -- eg User:HurricaneHiggins/Draft2026Season -- and play around with the syntax needed to create the actual article without it going into a public page? --CitroenLover (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Hey @CitroenLover, totally understood. I'm pretty tapped out too at the moment ... I've been writing all of the tournament summary sections virtually single-handedly since the World Championship. That's why I'd be grateful to see an editor better versed in table formatting step up and create a page for the next season. This kind of stuff is really not my forte. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thats no problem @HurricaneHiggins. I’ll look at this tomorrow — even if it just creating the table output for you — as now the Shoot-Out is confirmed, and even without dates or official confirmation just now, we can pretty much guess when the Scottish Open is going to happen [but i won’t include it on the table in a visible way]. — CitroenLover (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @HurricaneHiggins I've set up the table for WST-only events here: User:CitroenLover/SeasonTable. World Championship is included, despite not being on any sources yet, solely because there's many years of precedent. Some events are mentioned like Wuhan, Xi'an and a couple others, which aren't on the WST tournaments page, but they are mentioned by Matchroom on their "Qualifying Schedule" news article: however, that article doesn't give dates or venues, hence they're just there because we know already they're going to be played. --CitroenLover (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Hey @CitroenLover, this is fantastic. Love what you've done here, and there's definitely enough here for a stub article. Great work! I'll migrate this to a stub article shortly. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Okay @CitroenLover, we are live :-) HurricaneHiggins (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Great news! Glad to have helped. 👍 -- CitroenLover (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which one is preferred? I'm noticing some articles use the former, and a lot of articles use the latter. One negative to the RoundN LUA module is that it does not support dark mode when accessed on a mobile device, instead the template is light mode, which can be very jarring: this does not impact the 32TeamBracket template which themes itself to dark mode if the user views the wiki with that enabled. However, RoundN does have the benefit of being flexible for any type of tournament without requiring specific templates for specific brackets. Is there any preference to which one we should be using (World Championship excluded, which uses its own template for dates reasons), or does it not really matter in the grand scheme of things? -- CitroenLover (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at } you'll see that's it's a wrapper for Module:Team bracket. In 2025 Scottish Open (snooker) we're actually using } which uses Module:Build bracket. So the comparison here is really between Module:Team bracket, Module:Build bracket and Module:RoundN. I've not looked into it but I don't remember us using Module:Build bracket in the past. Generally Module:Team bracket uses the long-winded RD1-team01= style while Module:RoundN uses a much more compact style but it's not that easy to work out where the text needs to go. Perhaps doesn't matter too much but it's a bit confusing that (for instance) sometimes its "boldwinner=high" and sometimes its "bold winner=high" depending on which module you're using. Nigej (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Ah good spot there. Yeah I don't think it matters too much, but its creating a relatively inconsistent viewing experience [desktop vs mobile], where it would be better if all the pages used a consistent template implementation. Ultimately, in the long run, its about ease of editing. --CitroenLover (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this edit [1] for British Seniors open final being added as a non-ranking final.

I don't see this as a non-ranking event as it's not professional. I've been thinking for a while we should be more descriptive and specific as to what events we include and where they should live. If like your thoughs. Here's my thoughts on what we should have:

• Ranking finals

Specifically events that are labelled as ranking events by the World Snooker Tour specifically - no change

• Minor Ranking finals

Same as #1. No change.

• Professional non-ranking finals

Could also be named "Tour non-ranking events" or otherwise. This would only contain events on the Tour, or otherwise listed as strictly professional events. Amateur wildcards notwithstanding.

• Other major finals

This would be to sort of merge everything else. Pro-am events shouldn't be distinct from team events, or under 18 events. We'd have to be strict on this, but I think we could include events on the seniors tour here, national titles (such as the English Amateur title), international titles (such as the World Games, etc), variant events (such as Snooker+ and six-red world championships) and junior events. I think potentially a good judge as to whether an event is justified is if there is an article on the event as a whole.

The only other thing to be added is potentially on the women's bios events on the Ladies tour. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been comfortable with seniors events being lumped in the non-ranking section for the same reason. I agree with separating them. I'm not so sure about putting pro-am/variant/amateur etc into one section as it could potentially end up enormous. Using Darren Morgan#Career finals as an example, the "other" table could end up with over 50 rows as almost all of his non-ranking finals would end up in one section. Also a difficulty with the team event layout being different. Or would you envisage a layout similar to Neil Robertson#Amateur titles? I think putting everything into a prose section like that rather than a table would work better for a large "other" section. Or if retaining the career finals section tables as they are now, maybe splitting off Seniors into a table of its own would work? I had proposed this here before but never ended up implementing it (the reason for which escapes me). Andygray110 (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] you are right, we could have it as it's own section. I'm keen not to split things too heavily when they are just non-professional events. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:38, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the whole of 2026, Women in Red is focusing on women in sport. This provides opportunities for creating biographies of notable women in a wide variety of sports, including snooker. If you are not already a member of Women in Red, feel free to join up under "New registrations" here.--Ipigott (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor, or possibly several anonyous editors, is/are making a number of changes to articles inlcuding adding qualifying events to lists of tournaments wins. (Sounds familiar...). See e.g. Paddy Morgan, Kingsley Kennerley, John Spencer (snooker player). A few of the edits, IMO, are OK so I haven't reverted those. If you have snooker articles on your watchlist please keep an eye out! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the Scottish Masters from 1997 to 2002, the qualifying events are listed in the players' articles as tournament wins (not sure how long they've been there). Think it's a stretch to class those as a title. Andygray110 (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The victories in the Scottish Masters that are listed are on the Snooker.org website, They added them as a separate event and title, just like the Masters qualifying tournament counts as a title.

That isn't the consensus we have. We don't include qualification events. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] So to be clear, the Masters Qualifying win for Neil Robertson should not be included in his non-ranking wins table? This table also includes the recent Crucible Cup which is a snooker 900 rules event. Is this okay? Thanks. Canary757 (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I don't know anything about the Crucible Cup, something being on different rules isn't that much of a problem, but certainly not the Masters qualification event (or even when it was the Benson and Hedges championship). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My edit here was reverted, citing that the "legend table does not allow for this configuration". I would like to make the point that the definitions used for the legend of the table does not account for the fact that the Championship League is a group-based format with league stages and group play-offs, which do not fit the definitions that the legend is meant for. Using "WD" for Championship League events, when the player clearly competed in it and then withdrew later for other reasons is not appropriate imo, because that implies the player did not even play in the event at all: using the reverted edit for this discussion, Zhao clearly played 3 groups of this event and then withdrew after Group 6 (probably so he could go and prepare for the German Masters), so to say WD is nonsense and misleading, considering we use WD primarily to indicate players who were expected to play an event and who chose to pull out. WD would make more sense on the CL Snooker when the player didn't play a single match in the event [ie entered, then had to be replaced].

Therefore, I would like to recommend that we should not be using the Legend codes -- as they're written -- on the Championship League (both its ranking and invitational formats) because they do not fit this tournament format and also do not make the slightest sense if taken as literal as they're given. It would be more logical that we specify the furthest group the player reached in the event if they competed in the event (eg for the invitational Championship League, we should use `GX` -- where X is the group number they stopped at -- WG referring to them participating in the Winners Group but not participating in the play-offs and then SF/F/W as usual for the Winners' Group play-offs), and use a symbol or note to denote any player who technically could play in a subsequent group but chose to withdraw for various reasons. This would avoid misleading readers and be more accurate. For the ranking version, 1R/2R/3R for the first 3 stages, with F/W on the final, would probably work well enough.

Thoughts welcome please. @Andygray110 @Nigej @Lee Vilenski @HurricaneHiggins @BennyOnTheLoose @KDayne CitroenLover (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that indicating a player withdrew from a tournament when they actually withdrew from a tournament (regardless of their reasons) is "misleading readers" regardless of whether they withdrew prior to the tournament began or on the day of the final. I don't agree the Championship League is a particularly special case purely because of it's format as a withdrawal is still a withdrawal. Also not keen on disapplying how the table works for one tournament as that's just asking for trouble; it would be better to either change the approach for all tournaments or not all. But I do agree that WD could be improved as it is quite stark and doesn't signify the stage a player reached. I reckon it would be simpler to add an inline nb note next to WD to indicate the tournament stage reached before the player's withdrawal - this is already used in Zhao's table to indicate the reason for tournament withdrawals during his suspension. Andygray110 (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'd be using RR and having a note. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Lee Vilenski Saying RR with a note would work, although I'm concerned that if we don't link to the specific group they reached, it would also be confusing if you don't read the individual page, as it would potentially imply it was just "one large Round-Robin group". This is also a problem when -- validly -- we do not link to the individual edition tournament page for players who withdrew, so no context can be obtained for the withdrawal short of abusing the notes feature, which I'm not a fan of doing as it already stretches columns [such as in the Zhao page example where we have notes in the 2022-23 column]. The CL Snooker being the way it is makes it very unique from all other tournaments, so I feel like it might be better to handle it separately (but without creating a new entry in the legend table to make it stand out). I would hope readers would be able to understand the nuance themselves without it needing to be explained somewhere below the table. @Andygray110 I get your points, however the CL Snooker is a very unique format where the current set up of these performance tables would not have taken it into account. Its the only tournament using round-robin groups: the invitational version is also the only tournament where you can progress to the play-offs of Group 1 but move into the next group and continue in the tournament (the ranking event version does not do this: in that version, only the top player of the group progresses, the rest get eliminated there and then). So we really need to be treating at least the invitational version with a different application of the legend description, since that table is assuming every single tournament are straight knock-out single elimination tournaments, which this tournament basically isn't (except for the Group Play-Offs). I would agree with you that a WD is a WD, however this should only apply in cases such as that with Zhou Yuelong, who had signed up to play in the tournament but was expected to join in Group 7: he then withdrew before that group commenced (which meant someone could replace him in the group), so that is definitely a WD, but Zhao's withdrawal isn't really the same in this format, because he'd played the three groups before it and earned money from it. You could argue we shouldn't be using WD on players who withdraw half-way through events and should be noting the stage they reached with a separate indicator of WD, but I just want to focus on the Championship League for now because it is just a fact that its format is unique and thus needs a different way of being handled in these tables (if we're consistent in application for a tournament, it should be fine, we don't need the CLS to be consistent with other tournaments because its just not lol). --CitroenLover (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] RR[a] Seems like a suitable way to handle this. Player did play in event, note explains all details. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] There are other tournaments that have used a round-robin setup at certain stages of the tournament e.g. 2006 Grand Prix where Mark Williams withdrew. So there are other tournaments to consider with similar setups other than the Championship League (Six-reds is another). A note seems to be the easiest solution. Andygray110 (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Personally, I think this highlights a problem (that we have discussed before) about these tables. 1R could mean the last 16, or the last 128. RR could mean the 128 round or the last four. It doesn't accurately explain where the player managed to progress too. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I agree. I think it's difficult to find a solution that works. The limitation with the present setup is as you pointed out, whereas an alternative L128/L64 visual is also troublesome as it doesn't indicate for some tournaments that a L16 elimination is a first round elimination, and that could mislead some readers into thinking the player progressed through a few rounds. I guess that's where the tournament wikilinks in the table come in useful for info that can't really be visualised in the table. Andygray110 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Andygray110 You're right that historically, other tournaments have done round-robins, but I'm only really bothered about the tour as it stands, where group-stage formats are basically not used anywhere other than the CLS (let's pretend the WST Pro Series never happened for the purposes of this lol). It would help if we could nail down a format for one tournament (so for group stage tournaments, lets set a format that works in the CLS, since its the most prolific example of group-stage formats in the last 15 years; and for single elimination knock-outs, lets set a format that works for, say the World Championship), and then replicate that across all other events. We could also do with merging duplicate entries (like how the Shoot-Out and Shanghai Masters get shown twice because the tournaments used to be of a different status than now: eg Shoot Out was NR, now its ranking, so its even more confusing). I personally would rather the tables were wider in terms of the individual season columns to allow us to be more flexible than super narrow. This would allow us to have more space to have more text in each individual cell. For example, if we do what I did on Zhao's table recently and start colspanning/rowspanning repeat entries, we'd save ourselves a lot of editing time as we wouldn't need to repeat the same thing over and over. --CitroenLover (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @HurricaneHiggins your thoughts on the above would be welcomed as well (both on the initial proposal, and also on the idea of colspanning/rowspanning repeat entries in the performance tables where visible). I have another proposal in mind, which I'll post separately over weekend. -- CitroenLover (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @CitroenLover, I agree that it's inappropriate to use WD if a player has competed in the event. Typically a withdrawal happens before an event begins and suggests that the player did not compete at all. I think your other proposal sounds good as well, but will wait till you post your other ideas over the weekend and weigh in again. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, per a discussion thread on Talk:2026 German Masters, @CitroenLover suggested raising this point here. I'd like to request that we all respect precedent and consensus when we are editing snooker articles. The way we do things will naturally evolve over time, which is understandable — and yet we're also trying to maintain an archive of professional snooker events going back a century, which editors past and present have put a lot of painstaking work into building. It's been noted that WP:BOLD is being used frequently as a rationale for making significant changes to established procedure, without any input or consensus from the community.

Therefore, I'd like to request that if anyone has suggestions for how we can improve the presentation of articles, either in terms of content, structure, formatting of results, etc., please discuss them on this project page first and establish a consensus for your proposed improvement(s) before forging ahead on a solo run. WP:BOLD shouldn't be used to override WP:CON. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD is the structure of Wikipedia editing. If someone is bold and makes a change to an article and isn't reverted, there's no issue. The only issue really with being too bold is when a change is made unilaterally across a wide range of articles in a short period of time without a consensus. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] The problem with Bold/Revert/Discuss, at least in my opinion, is that bold editors get their edits reverted for seemingly little reason and when a discussion happens, people just stick with the status quo and don't really see the benefits of a "bold edit". Take the performance table discussion above: while it resolved the primary issue highlighted, its not really resolving the underlying core problem that the tables just suck, and we're still stuck with a status-quo of "improving the table is welcome, but any time someone is bold in doing so, it gets reverted". There isn't any consistency with BRD in the pages: either we're bold and nothing changes by people maintaining the status quo, or we're bold and we just hope nobody gets mad (turn of phrase, not literal "mad") at the page being improved. That being said, the point about "BRD" is well-made and it works in some cases -- such as with the agreement not to put timestamps in headings for non-Shoot Out pages -- but its not a universal thing in the snooker wikipedia pages. Like, right now, I could go through all the top players and clean up the performance table in line with what i suggested in the previous heading (colspanning/rowspanning repeat entries), and someone will be highly likely to come along and say "bad edit, revert", even though the edit is neither bad, nor something that needed to be reverted to begin with. Speaking of which, I'll make a more concrete proposal to improve the performance tables across all contexts over the weekend (either later tonight, or over the actual weekend days, time permitting). I really want to improve these, even if only in a minor way, to declutter / simplify our editing of this table. --CitroenLover (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] We've discussed performance tables a few times, without really achieving a consensus. I made a few (perhaps too bold) changes for the one at Alex Higgins, e.g. having tournaments on a single line, rather than multiple lines for something like the World Championship. We can't fit all the info in them we would like. One issue that bothers me a bit is that SF in a four-player tournament is very different to SF in a large tournament. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @BennyOnTheLoose In terms of performance tables, I don't think there's an issue with being bold on these, as nobody wants to tackle them, and as long as the salient structure and points are made in them, go for it. That being said, I think we need to perhaps stop including "one-off" tournaments in the "career-based" tables, and just stack them in their own separate collapsible table (the table containing these columns: link to tournament page, season it was held in [with link to said season], players' performance and a reference). This would deal with the very irritating issue of having the words "Not Held" colspanned across the entire length of the table, with just a random cell containing the one time the event was played. I'd also like to see us doing away with the currently rare situation where tournaments change their status: for example, we have the Shanghai Masters listed twice because one instance of it is a ranking tournament and another is a non-ranking tournament. This is confusing: we should merge the two into one row and just put a symbol next to those editions where it was played as a ranking event (or vice versa, like with the Shoot-Out going from Non Ranking to Ranking). I also don't know why we put "MR" for minor-ranking editions of tournaments, and would prefer this was replaced with the same (performance in event with a note or symbol to indicate its minor-ranking). Overall, I do like your table structure, but its a lot simpler for someone like Alex where the table will never change from this format: compared to say Ronnie, John, Willo or any other currently serving player where the width just keeps growing every season they are actively playing. --CitroenLover (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hi @Lee Vilenski, it's quite morale-sapping to be told this. The WP:BRD concept sounds great in theory, but in practice it depends on a significant number of people being willing to spend their time analyzing, reverting and discussing the activities of a "be bold" rogue editor on a case-by-case basis. The snooker editing community is already small and dwindling; I don't recognize many of the names on the "list of participants" as active contributors anymore. None of the few remaining active regular editors has the time to methodically trawl through articles edit by edit to see which new innovation is being implemented this week ... and if this is our only recourse, the venture seems pointless. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'm afraid it's not really our choice as how editing works on a project level, we don't have any additional rights over articles in our purview (snooker articles) than any other user. A WikiProject is simply a group of people who have said they edit in that sphere and then a good location for discussion and notices. Outside of general sanctions,[b] there really is no subject based editing rules, so it is what the regular policies and guidelines we already have sitewide that are what we rely on. They do include WP:BOLD which I do think works well with the cycle of revertion and discussion. FWIW, BOLD doesn't mean just do what you want, you may be interested in the wording of the guideline: Also, changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a latent conflict, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. if you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes; but there are nevertheless situations in which bold edits can safely be made, even to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page. Realistically, no one is going to be able to say "don't make changes until it is discussed", as that is kinda contrary to how Wikipedia works, BUT when we do see something that has been added and could do with further discussion before being allowed, WP:QUO exists, usually meaning we should retain the previous status quo until it has been discussed. Yes, it can be frustrating seeing things you've worked hard on not look the same as they did, but I guarantee it is much worse in other sections of Wikipedia.[c] I hope this isn't too long a response, because I agree that making a big change to an article (or a series of articles) is better off discussed first.

Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the lengthy and thoughtful response, @Lee_Vilenski. I appreciate that people will always add or change things here and there, which is fine, but I'm more concerned when WP:BOLD is interpreted as a broader licence to institute structural changes without consensus, in a way that amounts to "flying under the radar." So it's useful to have the actual wording of the guideline available and see, as you say, that it doesn't just mean "do whatever you want." Also, I'm absolutely not calling for sanctions, and I appreciate your point that the editing rules are the same for snooker as everything else. Thanks again. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] No drama. I didn't want you to think I was being blaze. Yeah, BOLD isn't a "do what you want". It's more, you don't HAVE to discuss everything before you do it. I think in reality, with what we are dealing with, anyone trying to fix some of our templates should be lauded. I don't have a plan for the performance table. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks. I know we discussed performance tables recently (in the context of Championship League regarding WD usage), but I want to bring up the wider topic of how we can improve these tables long-term, while sticking to the existing format as much as possible. I intend to just list the proposals and then see what you folks think of them individually (though I have provided context to explain what they mean), in the hope that we can finally get a consensus on how to improve them.

Here are my proposals:

1. Any tournament entries which are duplicated -- because the tournament was previously a Ranking/Non-Ranking event, and then converted to Ranking/Non-Ranking -- should be merged into one row representing the in-progress version of the tournament. At the moment, this only applies to the Shoot-Out and the Shanghai Masters, however it could extend to others in future. Combining these into one row will make it easier to edit and reduces the need to colspan "Non-Ranking" or "Ranking" over multiple columns for the editions which were NR/WR. A symbol should be used to denote editions of tournaments which are of the alternative version (eg in the Shoot-Out, the symbol denotes that the edition of the tournament the player competed in did not carry ranking points; and vice versa). NB: Championship League should NOT be merged: instead, these should remain separate, but should be clearly denoted in the text as "ranking" and "invitational", this will ensure we do NOT have the nonsensical colspanning of "Non-Ranking Event" in the ranking row for this tournament, when clearly its a relatively new event from 2020. 2 (Various points regarding the legend keys, there is a separate point about it later in the topic): a. Where a player has repeatedly failed to qualify for an event over multiple seasons, the individual "DNQ" cells should be replaced by colspanned "Did Not Qualify". This will cut down on the amount of text in the pages (reducing their overall size), reduce the necessity of maintaining historical entries in an ever-growing table list, and also look cleaner in the page anyway. This should NOT apply to individual tournament editions the player played in, only generic text strings that can be colspanned in this way. You can see examples of this in the Zhao Xintong article, where it does not change anything in how the page is displayed. b. In the same vein as above, "A" should not be used for invitationals or restricted-field events: we should use "A" for general ranking tournaments in which the player obviously chose not to enter, but any event which has a defined qualification criteria should use DNQ/Did Not Qualify if the player was not eligible to compete. Using "A" implies the player was eligible and just didn't bother entering, which is nonsensical for something like the Masters. c. A row representing a tournament that a player has never participated in should NOT be added: many players will not participate in the Masters (for example), so adding the Masters to a players' performance table for it to just show "Did Not Qualify" over and over is redundant, we should add the row only when the player makes their debut appearance in the event. d. We should do away with "Minor Ranking Event" designations in the table: instead, the players' actual performance should be included, and a symbol should be used to denote that the tournament was considered "minor-ranking" (whatever that means). 3. If a player has a column for a season, and the column only exists for one single tournament that they were playing in, the column should be removed and the relevant tournaments they participated in should be noted elsewhere, perhaps in a smaller -- compacted -- table. The likely impacts for this will be on players from China who competed in the Haining Open as amateurs: having a whole column for basically single entry tournaments is a waste of characters and doesn't really add anything. The same should apply for non-WST professional players who only played on a WST event for the World Snooker Championship qualifying phase, while participating in nothing else for that season, thus keeping things more focused on the times when they actively participated on the WST itself, rather than "one off" appearances. 4. Tournaments which have only been played once in the entire history of the tour should not be included in the performance table. The reason for removing these is because they are always prepended and appended by "Not Held" over many columns, which is a waste of characters and adds nothing. Single-instance tournaments would be better off being included in a separate -- collapsible -- table which contains the following details [in this order]: a link to the tournament page, if one exists; the season in which that tournament was held, as a link; the players' performance in that tournament, following the standard key but in longer-form; a reference to confirm the information. Separating this information into its own table will make maintenance of the players' career table much more straight-forward. It also means we can document those COVID-era events (WST Pro Series and WST Classic) without having it clutter the performance table for the rest of time. I also think this should include the invitational Hong Kong Masters, which has only been held twice and which many players would not have been involved in to begin with. 5. Regarding the legend keys, we should perhaps transition to more clear "values", as its been raised that the designation of 1R is not uniform. There are two ways this could be dealt with: replace LQ with a more clear indication of what Qualifying Round the player participated in (QR1, QR2 etc), with 1R only referring to rounds played at the final venue; OR, replace 1R with Last-XXX designations, where XXX represents the number of players left in the round. This should not apply to QF, SF, F and W, which have clear designations and are used over Last 8, Last 4 and Last 2.

Okay, that was a lot of text! But hopefully we can have a discussion around all of these points and come to a suitable agreement on how to deal with this table. Obligatory @ mentions following this to get users to comment (pinging just active editors, could not find anyone else): @HurricaneHiggins @Lee Vilenski @Nigej @AlH42 @BennyOnTheLoose @Andygray110 -- CitroenLover (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On point 1, there are definitley more. See the Alex Higgins example I mentiioned above, where there are seven tournaments that switched between non-ranking and ranking. 2a i agree with using spans aross rows or colums to reduce visual clutter. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hi @BennyOnTheLoose good shout that. I only included Shoot-Out/Shanghai Masters because I was just thinking of current tournaments with this problem, but we'll have the same issue on historical events as well: whatever we decide to do with current tournaments should be duplicated to older historical records as well. --CitroenLover (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]