Talk:2023–24 snooker world rankings

Seeding Revision 0 points

The players who received a two season tour card started at zero ranking points and no ranking position this season, however, the table is showing some of them with the number of points earned at the end of last season (which is correct from the source provided).

However, I think that this makes it look very odd if one compares a players points from one seeding revision to another. For example, Jimmy White looks like he has lost 40,000 points after the Championship League, which is incorrect. Would it be better to leave the source as it is but add a note next to any player who received a two-year card, and had earned ranking points at the end of last season, stating that their ranking points was reset? Steveflan (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I'm not sure why Jimmy had the 40,000 points to begin with? AmethystZhou (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky header

@AmethystZhou: I tried to add a sticky header to the seeding list table, in order to make it more "user-friendly", but it didn't work because of the width of the table so I reverted my own edit. I've used sticky headers before successfully. Have a look at this table. Have you any idea how we could make this work? Alan (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might have discovered another quirk of the Wikipedia codes on different browsers. I tried looking at your edit here on my end (Firefox on Windows) and it works. I have a very wide monitor so the table is smaller than one screen wide, I tried resizing my browser so the table is now wider, the header works either way. However, I found that the sticky header ({{sticky header}}) conflicts with the horizontal scrollbar (<div style="overflow-x: auto; margin: 1em 0">), you can only add one of them to the table, or the sticky header won't work. EDIT: the sticky header in your edit also works on my iPhone. AmethystZhou (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It "conflicts with the horizontal scrollbar". I think that's the point. You can have one or the other but not both. Is there any way to make the table narrower, as not all of us have wide monitors. Alan (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on making the table narrower. The problem is I don't think there's a way to have both a static header row and a static header column. I have a mock up in my sandbox that only has the ranking points at each revision, and a single "ranking" column. But @Nigej pointed out here that it may be better to do the opposite and only show the rankings at each revision. Alternatively, we could also split it into two tables, one showing the rankings, and the other showing the points. This way we can keep the sticky header and have the table not be too wide. And add a third table that shows the points earned after each revision point, like the "Ranking points" table from the previous season. AmethystZhou (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting into two tables sounds like a good plan. Alan (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the two table idea, although perhaps its a bit "over the top". Personally I suspect that for the general reader the rankings are more interesting that the points. We're not really meant to be a repository of dull statistical information, and there's a danger that this sort of article goes down that route. Tables can be collapsed but whether that's a good idea I'm not sure, Help:Collapsing, MOS:COLLAPSE Nigej (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the points table could be collapsed. Nigej (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Help:Collapsing, it seems to be only for hiding rows - not columns, which is what we want here. Alan (talk) 09:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking we could collapse the whole points table. Nigej (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another idea, but one that would need quite a lot of work. Instead of having two columns for each revision, just have one with the rank number having a tooltip containing the points value. You could then reduce the width of the header, either by changing "Seeding" to "Seed", and "revision" to "rev."; or by using vertical text. Then you could use the sticky header. Alan (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is all getting way too complicated. The article is called "2023–24 snooker world rankings" so lets make the rankings the absolute priority here. I know that in previous seasons we've added the points too, but that's not a good reason to carry out down that route. If someone wants to add all the points details we can have a Snooker world ranking points type article for that. Nigej (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. So the two table approach would seem to be the solution. Alan (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a thought: In the 2023–24 snooker season#World ranking points section, it links to 2023–24 snooker world rankings and Snooker world ranking points 2023/2024, the second of which article does not exist. So maybe it would be better to just have the rankings in this table, and create the redlined article and put a points table in there. Alan (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be keen on that approach. Keep the rankings article for the rankings and detailed points stuff can go in a points article, for those who are interested in the gory details. Nigej (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AmethystZhou: Over to you then :-) Alan (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like this approach. I have an Excel spreadsheet set up so I can generate the Wiki codes for these tables pretty easily. AmethystZhou (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. Don't forget the multiple Browns, Jones's, O'Sullivans, Robertsons, Whites, Williams's and Wilsons that I just corrected. Alan (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thnk that is a huge improvement. Well done, Alan (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'd like to highlight the top 16, 32, and 64 somehow, but I'm not sure what's the best way without violating MOS:COLOR. AmethystZhou (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think it's worth the bother. You could, perhaps, just set the top 32 to bold. Also, the links in the 2023–24 snooker season#World ranking points section will need to be updated, if you're not going to create a new article for the points. Alan (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also see MOS:NOTOOLTIPS Nigej (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, what about all the tooltips for seedings that have been used in all tournaments so far this season? Alan (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a "guideline" so WP:IAR might apply. Nigej (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting top 16, 32, and 64 players

I'd like to highlight the top 16, 32 and 64 players, as these are important ranking cut-offs either for event qualifying, or retaining tour cards. However, I'm not sure what's the best way to do so without violating MOS:COLOR. I have a version in my sandbox that only uses color for highlighting. I also tried using a combination of bold and italic fonts but it doesn't look good IMO. Although, I wonder if it still is a MOS:COLOR issue if the numbers themselves already convey the information? AmethystZhou (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I take the point. At say Judd Trump#Performance and rankings timeline, the W, F, SF and QF do convey the same information as the background colour, and so, in those cases, the background colour is just an addition which doesn't actually convey extra information, it's just highlighting. Obviously in this case we're covering a range of numbers eg 17-32 so there's some difference there. Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Formatting issues and MOS:COLORCODING. The latter does say "Background color should be used only as a supplementary visual cue and should be subtle (consider using lighter, less-dominant pastel hues) rather than glaring." which seems to be the case here. My worry is that we're in danger of down a route of more and more gimmicks in our tables. Often simpler is better and adding the background colors does actually takes the reader's eye away from the actual information (ie the reader's attention is drawn to the colours, rather than the numbers). Nigej (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]