Talk:Masters (snooker)

Snooker Top‑importance

	This article 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 articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Table styling

This edit is inappropriate. There is absolutely no need to override the default wikitable styling on this template; informational tables are not baubles to be coloured as editors please. It should be reverted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was the original format, that was created 5 years ago. See this Armbrust (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that since that point there has been a sustained drive towards standardising the appearance of our tables and templates for consistency and ease of use. That was the purpose of removing the styling; it should be removed again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wildcard Round

Have they abandoned the qualifying tournament and wildcard round for the 2011 Masters? I've seen nothing about it online and there is no section on the 2011 tournament page. If it's still in it should be added to that page, if not it would be an interesting thing to add the the history section of this article. Christophee (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I've found out that there was no qualifying this year. I'm thinking of adding more about the format of the tournament in the history section and how it has changed over the years. At the moment there's not a great deal about it. Christophee (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. This year the wildcard round was eliminated. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is In dire need of sections - but apparently that's 'non standard' ?!?!

So, I found this article today, and immediately noticed some of it's glaring errors were (beyond the need for a complete rewrite of the prose) the fact there is actually information about the sponsors and venue in here (which is what brought me to it, to figure out who the hell BGC Partners are), but it's spread all over the place in that massive History section. That section also has a little throwaway line at the bottom of it about the only two maximum breaks in the tournament, which people would conceivably look for as standalone info. So I tried to fix it by reorganising that stuff into its own sections, as can be seen in this version. Wikipedia being what it is these days though (not hard to see why contributions are down, as has been reported in scientific studies), shock horror, it's been instantly reverted wholesale by someone called Armbrust, with the justification "doesn't follow the structure of other snooker tournament umbrella articles".

If people have somehow decided this should be the uniform format, all I can say is that's really sad. If the standard structure is to have one giant History section with absolutely everything stuffed into it except the winners table, then go for it, but I can tell you now, that doesn't serve readers at all (although I'm sure my reason for coming to the article somehow won't be considered important). In my opinion, this article in its current state is beyond shit, barely useful unless you're willing to spend the time to read the whole thing top to bottom like a bloody book! So much for WP:NOTPAPER and mediawiki. And how is it that venues and sponsors and stats are not considered important enough for separate sections, to be easily found and digested without reading the whole bloody thing, yet the increasingly dated and arguably historical info about the attempted renaming of the trophy, is the only other info that is given a standalone section in the article? Someone has their priorities all wrong.

Hopefully someone with more time for this crap than me will see this message and help the encyclopoedia's snooker coverage by improving the standard format across all the tournament articles. JoolsRun (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe it needs a rewrite, but the proposed modification isn't the solution. It's not a good idea to create sections which barely contain any useful information and there is almost no potential in expansion. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how it's not a good idea to help readers find information they are looking for? Watching the tournament today, I wanted to know who BGC were and turned to Wikipedia. Having found this article, in this current state it took me ages to find out where sponsors were discussed in it (and even when I found it, it doesn't even say who they are or what they do). It's obvious that sections would do a better job in that scenario.

The sections could easily be expanded if they were allowed to exist in the first place - part of the reason this article is so crap is that it has so little information about very basic things like where it's been held over the years (I have no idea why it moved from Wembley Arena for example, do you count that as useful information or not?), yet it has whole paragraphs about single shots. I suppose nobody notices that with this format though.

It wouldn't be so bad if the information was properly integrated into a proper narrative history which flowed from start to finish, but what this crap heap actually looks like right now, is if someone had originally added this information in separate sections below the History, and someone just came along and removed the headers. Would that have been you by any chance? JoolsRun (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your first point, this article is about the tournament and not about it's sponsors. There is no need to explain anything about the sponsors. This should be done on the article of the sponsor (if exists). The second point: (1) How will you expand the proposed 2 sentence "maximum break section"? (2) Will add the information about the reason for relocation in a momment. To the third point. I haven't remove any section headers because such headers never existed. BTW I'm working on a rewrite of the article, which will contain subsection of the "History section". Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that. I was amused to see the article didn't even state that B&H was a cigarette company - even though later on in the paragraph it explains the reason why they were dropped was the ban on tobacco advertsing! Brilliant. If that's what you class as unimportant information, I don't have high hopes for this rewrite (my clarification that it was a cigarette company was one of the many things you just wholesale reverted). As for the maximums, you could add all sorts of information - what round/frame it was, was it a crucial moment, was there a prize for it, etc etc etc. And if not, even if it's just a simple list of maxumum break winners, then if you look at better sports articles around Wikipedia, you'll find other people have no problem keeping that sort of thing in its own easily findable section, titled 'stats' or 'records' or similar, rather than oddly tacking it onto the end of prose where it so clearly doesn't belong, and is only ever going to be found by accident rather than by design. JoolsRun (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "cigarette company" information is only relevant because the sponsor needed to be changed, for the others is totally irrelevant. For the maximums, there really very few information available at them in reliable sources. The rearrangement will happen chronologically. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has Ronnie become the lowest ranked winner of the masters?

Did any of the Wildcards ever win? Looking down the list I can't see any... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.13.140 (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at Talk:2014 Masters (snooker)#Is Ronnie the lowest ranked player to win the Masters?. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Masters (snooker). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Masters (snooker). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]