Talk:European Masters (snooker)

Snooker High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Malta Low‑importance

	Malta portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malta, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malta 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.MaltaWikipedia:WikiProject MaltaTemplate:WikiProject MaltaMalta articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

European Open split

The European Open results were recently split out to their own article. I have reverted the split since this goes against the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archive 3#Merge European Open (snooker) and Malta Cup (snooker) articles? to house both sets of results on the same page. This practice follows the convention on other snooker articles where the results of rebranded tournaments are housed on the same page.

After being revived in 2001 it played under that name until 2004, and the "following season it was re-branded as the Malta Cup" as detailed at http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Euro.html. There is no doubt that they are the same tournament. The 2005 Malta Cup held was held at the same venue and the 2004 Europen Open winner (Stephen Maguire) was the number 1 seed at the 2005 Malta Cup. If it were not regarded as the same tournament then there is no valid explanation for why Maguire would be the top seed, since the top seeding either goes to the defending champion, the world champion or the World Number 1 depending on the circumstances.

If the tournament is being revived under its historic title then the article should simply be renamed to the "European Open". It's not the first time a tournament has reverted to an older name (the LG Cup (snooker) reverted back to being the Grand Prix after LG withdrew its sponsorship) and the Scottish Open (snooker) has recently been moved back to its historic title. The organizational structure of the snooker articles should reflect the history of the tournament not the sponsorship and branding. Betty Logan (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. They are two different names of the same tournament, so there should be only one article about it. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Should the European Masters entry be split from this article to a new article?

RE-MERGE

Re-merge per WP:OVERLAP. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is proposed by Creepy pasta to create a European Masters (snooker) article to house the 2016 entry, on the basis that he believes it belongs to a different family of tournaments to the European Open/Malta Cup. This is a retrospective application because the article has already been created via a bold edit. The two options are:

Split this article, resulting in retaining European Masters (snooker) and removing the 2016 content from European Open (snooker)
Retain European Open (snooker) in its pre-split form and redirecting European Masters (snooker) to European Open (snooker).

Betty Logan (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Oppose split/Remerge European Masters World Snooker has a long history of rebranding tournaments as can be seen at List of snooker tournaments and all evidence points to the fact that the "European Masters" is simply a rebranded entry in the European Open series (which is a fairly normal occurance since sponsors usually help select the name for the event). This is not a supposition by me, and can be verified by the usage of the terms "European Open", "European Championship" and "European Masters" which World Snooker uses interchangeably on its own calendar and website. Here are some examples of the usage on official World Snooker literature:
- The article detailing the "European Masters" can be found at http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/european-championship-2016/ (note it is catalogued under the European Championship name)
- As can be seen on the calendar, World Snooker use "European Championship" and "European Open" interchangeably (see the October entry and the heading for that section)
- The url http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/european-open-2016/ (note the "open" in the url) actually directs to the article detailing the European Masters.
- The event was actually announced as the European Open prior to the name change.
- World Number 1 Mark Selby refers to the event as the "European Open" on the calendar at his official website.

The editors arguing for the split have singularly failed to establish that the event is distinct from the "European Open". They have no explanation for why the European Open URL links to the European Masters page, or why the terminology is used interchangeably on the calendar. IMO it is counter-productive to split the content from this article because it splits the lineage over more than one article which is at odds with how our snooker tournament articles document rebranded events. Until it can be firmly established that the event is completely new and distinct from the European Open (which I think is unlikely in view of the evidence presented above) I do not believe it is in the interest of the article or our snooker coverage to split out the content. Betty Logan (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above – the articles should be remerged. As happens frequently, some user (Creepy pasta in this particular case) decides to disregard any facts and reasons, and makes actions that result in long-term pointless discussions about obvious things such as the old World Snooker practice to rebrand old tournaments with slightly changed names and brand new sponsors, mentioned by Betty Logan. Realistically, from the standpoint of the least waste of time and words possible, the article created by Creepy pasta should have been deleted immediately with the old one being renamed to European Masters. Any arguments opposing to this position can only be made from the point of ignoring obvious facts and concepts widely accepted in the snooker section of Wikipedia. Vinitsky14 (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Vini, there is no solid source indicating it's the former European Open. The calendar had it as European Championship, then European Open, then European Masters. And we also had a URL with European Open, which is now archived. And the title was anyway European Championship (subsequently renamed as the European Masters). The URL is now European Championship, title European Masters. As the IP mentioned, there is a source on Snooker HQ saying "inaugural" tournament. If you don't think we could be right, what happens in the case Betty isn't right? All the data must be removed (different pages, different Wikipedias). I don't say Betty Logan is not right, I just say there aren't enough evidences. YET. Regarding Mark Selby, it's easy to say OPEN because all were opens for years. Masters is a less known term. Creepy pasta (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The tournament was added back to the calendar as the "European Open". All you've got is evidence of a name change. The event is still being held in the same country in the same spot on the calendar and still has the same promoters so there is no evidence it is a different event. All World Snooker have literally done on their website is change its name in all the documentation about the European Open. If they changed the name of the World Championship to the World Masters on their calendar but it still occupied the same slot, had the same format and promoters and broadcast on the BBC would you insist on creating a new article for it? Anyone who has followed snooker down the years is well aware that rebranding is a fairly common practice and that World Snooker don't generally issue press releases announcing name changes, they just simply do it. Betty Logan (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could be or it could be not the European Open. We don't have evidences. The title was European Championship, then European Open, then European Masters. On the site and calendar. Of course there is a practice of rebranding and all this, but don't we need a source? Because we also found some mentioning "inaugural". If we write it as the European Open and it's not in the end, being inaugural, what will happen? Will you rewrite the whole articles and wikipedias (all languages)? I am not against you at all and I respect your work. I wasn't that interested to keep my point of view necessarily but I see you opened a whole discussion on WP. Creepy pasta (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to remind you Betty that the official site doesn't have "current champion", which was Shaun Murphy in the last European Open edition many years ago in Malta. source Creepy pasta (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is because all events are re-seeded if they were not contested in the previous season. Virtually everyone who follows the game is aware of this. The World Open was not contested last season either so the "current champion" spot was left blank at the start of this season: https://web.archive.org/web/20160611211956/http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/world-open-2016/. The Scottish Open is being reprised this season too after a lay-off of a few years and the "current champion" spot is left blank: http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/scottish-open-2016/. Are you going to argue that these tournaments are not the World Open or Scottish Open on the basis they no longer have "current" champions? By comparing the web page entry for the European Open at the start of this season (https://web.archive.org/web/20160511132735/http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/european-open-2016/) and the European Masters page (http://www.worldsnooker.com/tournaments/european-championship-2016/) it is very obviously the same page with just an updated name. Betty Logan (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different tournaments. They are absolutely different tournaments. No any sources which say they are the same! Note, 1) the URL analysis is the original research. 2) Your link says: Romania will host a professional snooker tournament for the first time when the new world ranking event takes place in Cluj. 3) Another link [1] says: Qualifiers Introduced for Inaugural European Championship 95.133.211.190 (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC) P.S. You say Malta Cup/European Open is back after 8 years (!) and there were no any announcements. Do you have the sources? Which said "Malta Cup/European Open is back after 8 years". No, you have not! Only false URL research! 95.133.211.190 (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is the article (on World Snooker's website as opposed to the self-published blog you are attempting to pass off as authoritative) announcing the "new European Masters" is just an updated version of the article announcing the "new European Open" i.e. this is the same event as the one that was originally announced, but has just been updated with the new name. Betty Logan (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the same event until you will show the reliable source about it! Different tournaments have played in different years. You have no any sources which said they are the same. WorldSnooker article clearly says, new event. Even if they have similar names. Try to compare with Champions Hockey League (2008–09) and Champions Hockey League (since 2014). 95.133.211.190 (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the official World Snooker wording is, there is no point in having separate articles. The sole fact that the two tournaments have similar names and structure is a sufficient reason to consider them as one. Vinitsky14 (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's INAUGURAL. They look to be different indeed. Many writers call it "inaugural" tournament. Last sources: British television & Preston qualifiers for Bucharest - Blog-Reporter Creepy pasta (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The basis of the arguments about the European Open and European Masters seen to hinge on two facts.

The people saying that the European Masters is a revival of the tournament last held in 2008 as the Malta Cup are using the argument that when the 2016 tournament was originally announced, it was announced with the name "European Open", which was the original name of the Malta Cup before it found a permanent home in Malta.

The people saying that the European Masters is a completely new tournament are using the arguments that it is being held in a different country to the Malta Cup; it is being run under a completely different format to the Malta Cup; it is being held in a different calendar slot to the Malta Cup; and there is no "Current Champion" listed.

Since the Grand Prix and World Open have been brought into the discussion, can I just make a few points.

For the 2010-11 season, the fourth of the Major snooker tournaments, the Grand Prix, was renamed the "World Open". It was still held in the same city (Glasgow in Scotland) and had the same format. It also had the same slot in the calendar (Autumn) and the same trophy. It was exactly the same tournament, but using a different name. And nobody disputes this.

However, in the 2011-12 season, there were a lot of changes. The "World Open" was now held in a different city (Haikou in China) and had a totally different format. It had a different slot in the calendar (Spring rather than Autumn), and had a different trophy. To me, all these changes happening at once makes it a different tournament to that held the previous season.

To further complicate matters, the trophy presented at the Grand Prix from 1982 right up to 2010 re-appeared in 2015 as the trophy for a tournament in Wales called the "World Grand Prix" (it is being held in England in 2017). But, despite the World Grand Prix having the same trophy and a similar name to the old Grand Prix, the concensus on here is that it is the World Open that is a continuation of the old Grand Prix, and that the World Grand Prix is a completely new tournament.

Personally, I consider the old Grand Prix held under various names from 1982 to 2010 (i.e. including the 2010 World Open) in various parts of the UK to be one tournament, and hence should have a single Wikipedia page ( https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Grand_Prix_(snooker) ); the World Open held in China since 2012 to be a separate tournament, and hence should have a separate Wikipedia page ( https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/World_Open_(snooker) ); and the World Grand Prix held in various parts of the UK since 2015 to be a continuation of the old Grand Prix, but because so much time passed (and because the general concensus seems to be that it is a new tournament), it should also have a separate Wikipedia page ( https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/World_Grand_Prix_(snooker) ).

I know talking about the Grand Prix is off-topic, but it is a perfect example of how there is no common approach to the issues that World Snooker keep lumping us with when they change tournament formats; change tournament names; or re-use names of old tournaments without expressly saying "this IS a continuation of the old tournament" or "this is NOT a continuation of the old tournament".

Personally, I do believe that the European Masters is a continuation of the old European Open. But, since so much water has gone under the bridge, and there have been so many changes made to it, I think that this new run should have a separate Wikipedia page ( https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/European_Masters_(snooker) ).

86.145.110.14 (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 1 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved — Amakuru (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

European Open (snooker) → European Masters (snooker) – The title of a tournament article should be the most recent name of the tournament. It is understandable not to react immediately to a rebranding, but it's now the third edition of this tournament under the European Masters name, which seems sufficient legacy to justify moving the article. This is in line with World Open (snooker) which used to be known as Grand Prix. Per89 (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support I don't know enough about snooker but it might be worth splitting the 2016 re-creation into its own article now. If there's no split, I support the rename. @SMcCandlish: as someone more familiar with the field. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. Oppose a split because tournaments are routinely re-branded within snooker (usually due to a change of sponsor) and it's better to keep the entire tournament lineage in a single article (per the above discussion). Betty Logan (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tournaments change physical names all the time. It's very clear that the lineage is the same, and this will be the third tournament under the new name. Clearly the new WP:COMMONNAME in this case. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post hoc comment: I was on wikibreak, so didn't see this though I was pinged. I concur with how this went and the reasoning for it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]