Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2020/August

Cliff Thorburn

Hi all, I'm looking for a consensus what should be in the Cliff Thorburn article about a 1974 event, or possibly two 1974 events, that he won. (I'd like to get the article to GA soon). Details are at Talk:Cliff_Thorburn#1974_Championship. Any contributions or questions welcome. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Noppon Saengkham

Noppon Saengkham. It would be good if someone could update this page. Beating Shaun Murphy 10:4 is no mean feat. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I can take a look - although as a Murphy fan I was a little disappointed! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Joe Davis

Hi all, I'm hoping to get Joe Davis to featured article status at some point. I'm currently working on improving the references, and intend to request a Guild of Copy Editors review. If you have any suggestions for how to improve the article, please add them at the article's talk page. Thanks! Regards BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Redlist tournaments

Hi all, I've had a go at creating a list of redlist links for snooker tournaments in Wikidata that don't have an article on the English Wikipedia. It's at User:BennyOnTheLoose/RedlinkItems. I'm very new to SPARQL, so would be grateful to anyone who can highlight my errors and inefficiencies.

It looks like many of the listed items are actually events that we do have an article on the English Wikipedia for, but under a different name, so I'll merge the Wikidata items where I'm sure that's appropriate. Cheers, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

looks very good. If we have something that is under a different name, just link it on wikidata and it'll remove it from the query. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Coming to this discussion a little late. The list looks good - as a starting point for the Irish Professional Championships, in the years you have listed the tournament was just one challenge match where the defending champion played a challenger. Could still possibly be developed into an article though. I also have a list of tournaments on my user page (which admittedly hasn't been updated for a while!) which might help you cross-reference some of the articles. Andygray110 (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Mentions of sponsorship on all Snooker World Championship pages

Appears lazily pasted in, as if it's mandated regardless of form. Feels like advertisment, which it is. Belongs on the general Snooker World Championship page ("Embassy cigarettes sponsored the event years 19xx-20xx") if anywhere, and feels completely irrelevant where it is. Credit to them for sponsoring the event, but we might as well put the event organizer managing director instead. The referee at the final match would be more relevant. I deleted a bunch until User:Lee Vilenski started reverting them and suggested I bring it up here. --joeav —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Joeav - just as an FYI, new topics go at the bottom of talk pages, and you should sign your posts with ~~~~. I don't really see how something as important as the event sponsor isn't suitable for the event? As I stated on your talk, we have several featured articles that have the sponsor listed in the lede, and it is important information on the event, similar to the broadcasters, organisers and venue. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski It's irrelevant for the opening of the article. What difference does it make to the sporting event if Embassy cigarettes sponsored it or Imperial Tobacco? apart from giving credit to the sponsors (which is the purpose of advertisement), does it change anything critically important to snooker fans? does it belong with who won the event, who was the runner up etc? this is why I say it belongs in a different section, or in the general Snooker World Championship page. Joeav (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Because the official name of the event is different. It's important that we denote all aspects of an event. This is very normal across all sport articles where there is a single sponsor, for instance the 2019–20 FA Cup. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Sponsorship is already mentioned at the general Snooker World Championship page, and as you mentioned, it's in the name of the event. Please explain why it deserves more prominent real estate. --bad practice in other sports articles doesn't make this any better, and I wouldn't have noticed it in the first place if it didn't seem so out of place in some cases (1987 is a good example for that). I would move all mentions of the sponsor to the sections about prize, but then there's the problem of knowing if sponsorship actually included the prize money. For that matter, what did the sponsorship include? how much did they give? If their contribution to the event is in funding, shouldn't we know how much? Joeav (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

That is far and above what we are here to accomplish here as an encylopedia. Local consensus has always been to include sponsorship in the lede, which is something that seems like quite important information to me. You would need a consensus amongst other editors that this info isn't suitable for this to be removed/moved now we've been bold and been reverted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I saw the edits being made, and don't agree with them. Whether anyone likes it or not, those are the names of the events. Contractually how that works is the WPBSA signed a document to essentially change the title of the event to include the sponsor's name. We should reflect that in each championship, it is widely practiced across many many many other sport/championship/cup articles on wikipedia, and snooker is no different (if anything the history and notability of cigarette advertising in the development of snooker on TV in the UK makes it more not less likely. I strongly feel they should be put back. SFC9394 (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Most sporting events which are sponsored, and in particular those like the Embassy World Snooker Championship, regularly have that sponsorship discussed on every tournament page because usually that's what each individual tournament name includes. The edits by Joeav seem bizarre to me, but I'm glad they've ceased and desisted, and are engaging in civil discussion here. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Agree with the above comments. In snooker a sponsor is usually a key aspect of the event's identity. Provided the tone is factual rather than promotional (which in fairness has always been handled well on the snooker articles) I don't see any problem. Betty Logan (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with the above. We need to keep the sponsorship details in the article. Sponsorship has always been an important part of snooker's economics. Nigej (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's take the 1987 championship as an example. From the lede: The 1987 World Snooker Championship (also referred to as the 1987 Embassy World Snooker Championship for the purposes of sponsorship) was a professional snooker tournament that took place between 18 April and 4 May 1987 at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, England. It was the sixth and final ranking event of the 1986–87 snooker season. The championship was the 1987 edition of the World Snooker Championship, first held in 1927. The tournament was sponsored by cigarette manufacturer Embassy. The event had a prize fund of £400,000 with the winner receiving £80,000.

Apart from bad writing with disconnected sentences around the mention of sponsor, sponsorship takes up roughly 25% of this paragraph. This is in addition to Embassy already being in the tournament name on the right, featured in an image on the poster - also part of the lede, and mentioned in the (to me much more appropriate) general page for the Snooker World Championship, which has the relevant context of which years Embassy gave sponsorship, and the reason they stopped doing so. All this goes above and beyond being informative. As an encyclopedia, the value of this information doesn't warrant the real estate given to it. If you're studying the history of the event, it is very relevant to know the development of sponsorship, and this information is more conveniently found in one place.

EVERY major sporting event has sponsorship, there's nothing special about snooker in this regard. With this in mind, I randomly checked several other sporting events and entities - without cherry picking - and none of them had mention of sponsorship in the lede. Check the pages: 2019 Wimbledon Championships, Chelsea F.C., FC Barcelona, 2016 Summer Olympics, 2020 ATP Tour, Deontay Wilder vs. Tyson Fury II. As far as I know, all had sponsorship. Joeav (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Your list consists entirely of events in which the sponsor's name is not an integral part of the event name. See eg 2020–21 FA Cup which mentions The Emirates FA Cup. Or perhaps 2019 WGC-Dell Technologies Match Play which has the sponsor in the article name. Nigej (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Apart from bad writing with disconnected sentences around the mention of sponsor - have you never heard of a simple sentence? It's there to avoid WP:BOLDAVOID. We denote the official name for the event in bold, and we shouldn't link it there. In such a respect, we should really like to the sponsor in the same way we do with the World Snooker Championship. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow. 2019 WGC-Dell Technologies Match Play DOES NOT include mention of sponsorship in the lede, only in the event name itself. And the other example of the 2020–21 FA Cup really drives the point home: colloquially, no one would ever say "The EMIRATES 2020–21 FA Cup", or for that matter "the Embassy 1987 World Snooker Championship". When people without a vested interest discuss these events, they wouldn't include the sponsor's name. It's just the FA cup, just the Snooker World Championship. The only situations where you would hear the sponsorship included in the event name, is during broadcasts, or other situations in which the speaker is required to do so - with a producer making sure they do. And even during broadcasts, when discussing past events, commentators would rarely or never include sponsorship in the name. In that sense, the utility of including the name of the sponsor is still ONLY for the sake of advertisement (acknowledging the sponsor's contribution), and has no informative value.

The deeper issue here is about naming rights. For the sake of sponsorship, an event name could be changed every year, and this would mean that broadcasters would make sure to use the new sponsor's name. This does not mean that the public will follow suit. An excellent example of this would be with stadiums / arenas. It's not a coincidence that famous stadiums such as Old Trafford, Stamford Bridge, Camp Nou or Estádio do Dragão never incorporated sponsorship into their names, and that's because these names are well established and fans would never accept a new name in daily usage. Whenever it does happen, it is actually perceived as a joke and disrespect to fans. i.e Maccabi Tel Aviv's basketball arena, which to fans will always be Yad Eliyahu (after the neighbourhood) but has recently been named the Nokia Hall, and then Menora Mivtachim Arena - names only used by broadcasters. In this sense it is always about respecting the fans, or giving preference to the sponsor. And in the context of wikipedia, giving preference to the public interest (using names that are actually used colloquially), or giving preference to commercially interested parties that increasingly meddle in the way information is presented here.

re BOLDAVOID I honestly have no clue about this, but I understand that you sacrifice form because you believe this information must be included. Simple sentence or not, you don't lump sentences together like that unless you view their inclusion as priority over form. Joeav (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

We aren't a fan wiki, we are an encyclopedia. I'm not sure how you can think that the sponsor of an event isn't encyclopedic information. that's because these names are well established and fans would never accept a new name in daily usage. - of course, because no one evr refers to it as the Emirates Stadium. If you have a better way to reword the lede to include this information, please let me know. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

We aren't a fan wiki, we are an encyclopedia. - Fans are the public, the people who make daily use of a name, who are sometimes old enough that you can't forcibly change their language whenever sponsors change. An encyclopedia should reflect common usage, not commercial fancy. of course, because no one evr refers to it as the Emirates Stadium - Emirates is a NEW stadium. and fans still make a point to call it Ashburton Grove, even though there was hardly anything there before, just a corner between rail lines. Before Emirates was built, Arsenal played at Highbury Stadium, which is where the club was successful. So this cannot in any way be compared to Old Trafford and the likes. If you have a better way to reword the lede to include this information, please let me know. I already did, multiple times. Not in the lede paragraph: in the section mentioning prize, to the right of the lede incorporated in the name, and in the general page of an event (not a specific year) where it's much more relevant in context of the history of sponsorship. Joeav (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

There appears to be absolutely no consensus at all in favour of the approach taken by Joeav so I suggest it's time they accepted the community's position and move on. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, I've yet to hear any serious argument that holds water for keeping sponsorship so prominent in the lede. All I hear is "that's the way it is" and other false claims, such as: Most sporting events which are sponsored, and in particular those like the Embassy World Snooker Championship, regularly have that sponsorship discussed on every tournament page - untrue, examples above. And all snooker tournament pages giving too much emphasis to sponsorship in the lede is exactly the issue I'm trying to raise. So if we're not really having a discussion, can I ask how did you arrive at this consensus? some club meeting I'm not privy to? Will someone seriously answer why this information isn't more relevant in other pages and sections, as suggested several times above?? Joeav (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

To me the issue is not really related to sponsorship but to giving the official name of the event. With biographies we use the common name of the person for the article name but immediately give their full name in the article. It seems logical to me to do something similar for events: the article name is the common name but give the official name early in the article. For instance 2016 Summer Olympics says "2016 Summer Olympics ... officially known as the Games of the XXXI Olympiad". 2020 World Snooker Championship starts "2020 World Snooker Championship (also referred to as the 2020 Betfred World Snooker Championship for the purposes of sponsorship)". Personally I'd prefer "2020 World Snooker Championship, officially known as the 2020 Betfred World Snooker Championship," or something similar, but that's more a matter of style. Nigej (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

If it was only naming I'd have no issue. Please read the lede for the 1987 championship (I also pasted it above) where sponsorship takes up a disproportionate 25% of the lede, and forced to fit into it. when its in the name (to the right of the lede with the picture), as an AKA at the beginning of the lede, and then again as a statement, it becomes too much (more space than value)

I'm a little confused since the only extra text in the lead of the 1987 event relating to the sponsor seems to be the 8 words: "The tournament was sponsored by cigarette manufacturer Embassy.". Personally I'd be happy to see that form of sentence removed from the lead of all the individual events. I suppose you could justify the sentence if the name ("Embassy" in this case) is sufficiently obscure that it needs explanation for the average reader. Nigej (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The reason for this is to actually link to the sponsor. We used to have "the 2019 Betfred World Snooker Championship which fails both WP:SEAOFBLUE and WP:BOLDAVOID, which is why we now have an extra sentence saying that the event is part of the tournament series - so it is the 2019 edition of the World Snooker Championship - and also something that says what the sponsor is. The idea we can mention a company name, and not link to it isn't right. Even if the company was super household - say Google, you'd still link to it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm just saying that if we have just "officially known as the 2020 Betfred World Snooker Championship" and not the extra sentence, then there is no need to link to Betfred at all. It's just part of the official name of the event. We don't feel the need to explain why Ronnie O'Sullivan's middle name is Antonio. It doesn't need explaining. Nigej (talk) 08:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, saying "officially" instead of "also known" is fine. The idea we would cut this from the lede is bewildering to me. So if we're not really having a discussion, can I ask how did you arrive at this consensus - we are having a discussion, and no one has agreed to your point of view. The majority here suggest this information is suitable, and you've given no policy based reasons against its inclusion, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which are the opposite of good arguments Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

1. my WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was an answer to false claims of "that's how it always is". 2.limiting arguments to official WP policy, rather than common sense, is a form of exclusion. PR firms will always have more resources to staff professionals who could quote and advocate for policy when it suits their purposes. This might be why issues like this are increasingly becoming skewed. 3. I think we skipped discussion and went straight into something like a vote. everything else was full of inaccuracies. Joeav (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure what you are getting at regarding "PR firms". We are volunteers. Wikipedia is about finding consensus between the editing base not companies. However, we have core policies for what we should keep to in terms of style and substance. Your idea of common sense seems off the mark to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)