Jump to content

Talk:World Open (snooker)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move

[edit]

No sponsor for the Grand Prix this year, so the page should be moved to reflect this.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments

Discision

[edit]

Moved per request. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

494?

[edit]

The 494 points without reply counts only the four centuries plus the 21 points in the next frame, why? Higgins also won the frame before.

Photo and Prizes

[edit]

I think if there were a photo of the trophy and some more information about the prizes won, it would add to the article, eg. highest break prize, runner up prize money, etc. J.P.Lon 08:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 March 2016

[edit]
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: No consensus for the proposed move, though it deserves further consideration. (non-admin closure) — Dicklyon (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


World Open (snooker) → World Grand Prix (snooker) – This article has recently been the result of a cut and paste move by 109.148.59.43 which was subsequently reverted by Armbrust. The IP editor contends that the World Grand Prix which was resumed in 2015 is a continuation of the World Open event last played in 2014. The IP's contention is that it is the same tournament because they are using the same trophy. The IP's contention isn't as far fetched as it initially appears: the Grand Prix/World Open has a convoluted history when it comes to branding: the name has frequently changed due to sponsor changes, but it was always broadcasted by the BBC at the start of the season. It last played on the BBC in 2010 as the World Open. The World Open was resumed the following season in China where it was played for three years from 2012 to 2014 and broadcast on ITV4 in the UK. Last season, the World Grand Prix took its spot on the calendar and moved back to the UK, and it continued to be broadcast on ITV4. The question is, given the change of name, location and format is it still the same tournament? The IP contends it is because it uses the historic Grand Prix trophy. Here is a picture of Neil Robertson with the trophy in 2009 when it was still known as the Grand Prix: [1]. Here is another picture of Neil Robertson with the same trophy when he defended his title in 2010, after it was rebranded the World Open: [2]. Here is a picture of Judd Trump with the same trophy after winning the 2015 World Grand Prix: [3]. If you zoom in on that image you can actually make out some of the other names, one of the most telling ones being "World Open" directly above the name "Neil Robertson". Just for the record all trophies in snooker have a unique design, with no two tournaments having a trophy utilising the same design. World Snooker have to all intents and purposes have "rebooted" the tournament but most importantly they still consider it in the same lineage, otherwise why use the same trophy with all the previous winners on it? To this end I propose renaming the "World Open" article to its current name and extending the table to include the World Grand Prix results. Betty Logan (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems logical to me (and simpler). Many timelines in the biographies have assumed that the World Grand Prix is a continuation of the World Open. Even players who aren't playing are involved, eg Matthew Stevens has DNQ for the current event, on the same line as his World Open etc performances. So deciding that it's a new event involves much more than just reverting a few edits. Nigej (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, by the same reasoning the Haikou World Open is a different tournament, as it used a different trophy. (2012, 2013 & 2014) Armbrust The Homunculus 06:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Betty Logan: Also the Haikou World Open winners are not listed on the trophy. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She's not saying that the trophy is the only factor that determines whether it's a continuation or a new event. It's just that using the same trophy tends to indicate that World Snooker regard it as a continuation. Many tournaments have changed trophies, especially when there is a change of sponsor (eg Regal Welsh Open http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/snooker/4174705.stm which now uses a trophy with a piece of Welsh slate) and this may well have been the case here from 2012 to 2014. However, it would be unusual to use the same trophy for different events. Indeed I can't think of a snooker example.Nigej (talk) 07:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice it was a different trophy to the 2012-2014 World Open but as Nigej points out sometimes a change in sponsor can result in a change of trophy. Benson & Hedges, for example, even allowed Hendry to keep the Masters trophy after his fifth win and commissioned a new one, so a new trophy isn't conclusive evidence it is a new tournament. There is certainly a question mark over whether the 2012-2014 event is part of the Grand Prix lineage but IMO it wouldn't be logical to give a completely new event in the 2011/2012 season the exact same name as an event in the 2010/2011 season if we were not meant to regard it as a continuation. I think that is a separate debate though because the article is predominantly about a tournament that ran from 1982 and the World Grand Prix trophy clearly indicates that World Snooker itself is grouping the winners along with the historical Grand Prix winners, up to at least 2010, and our coverage of the event is currently at odds with that. Betty Logan (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's no more original research to look at the names on the trophy than it is to look at a page on the website. The "winners roll of honour" engraved on the trophy is a primary source for the winners of that event. It is absurd to suggest that World Snooker can't afford a new trophy for a new tournament. If they are separate tournaments there is no point to using the same tournament and grouping the winners together. Betty Logan (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Champion of Champions (snooker) where we have the 1978/1980 events with those from 2013. The 2013 event was also talked about as the first one but that hasn't stopped us adding the earlier ones. Nigej (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An absolutely different tournament that takes the same slot on the calendar, has the same broadcaster and uses the same trophy which has all the old Grand Prix winners engraved on it? It's not as though tournaments haven't changed countries before; indeed the World Open actually was in the UK before it moved to China. Out of interest can you name any professional tournament—not just in snooker—that has winners from another tournament engraved on the trophy? Betty Logan (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2016 (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.
So what happen's now? Nigej (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOCONSENSUS the status quo is retained. If more information comes to light we can review the situation then. Betty Logan (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or keep discussing here and see if you converge, even using existing information. If it looks like a consensus can be achieved, make a new RM (or just do it). Dicklyon (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The next step, having seen no consensus that they're the same event, should be to change the redirect World Grand Prix (snooker) into a full article on the new tournament. Currently there is a gap in coverage because this article doesn't mention winners post 2014 and there's nowhere else where Grand Prix winners are covered.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
and what about eg Mark_Selby#Performance_and_rankings_timeline, Ding_Junhui#Performance_and_rankings_timeline, Marco_Fu#Performance_and_rankings_timeline, Mark_Allen_(snooker_player)#Performance_and_rankings_timeline (and perhaps a 100 others for all I know) which all have the World Grand Prix as a continuation of the World Open? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigej (talk • contribs)
No consensus that they are the same event is the same as no consensus that they are not the same event. There is no gap in the coverage, or least there wasn't until this debate arose and Armbrust removed the 2015 and 2016 entries. As it stands now (with the article restored to the pre-dispute state) there is no "gap" in the coverage. With the redirect in place at World Grand Prix (snooker) that ensures all the links in the performance tables and templates take the reader to the main tournament article. If you—or any editor—wants to interpret "no consensus" as a mandate to create a new article (what effectively amounts to an article split) then are you willing to fix all the performance tables so the links link to the correct article? That won't require just renaming links, but splitting rows in tables which is going to be a massive job. Betty Logan (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, in an organised situation, "no consensus" would imply leaving the current status quo. However, here we have a large number of articles with, currently, an unknown number in one camp and an unknown number in the other. Does "no consensus" therefore imply that we leave the current randomness alone? Or perhaps, as you imply, "no consensus" means that either is acceptable and we can move from one random state to another. This latter approach might well lead to edit warring (as we have seen). All very philosophical. Nigej (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have check the "Performance and rankings timeline" of the new top 50 in the World Rankings. 47 have the World Grand Prix as a continuation of the World Open, 1 has them as separate (Shaun Murphy) and 2 don't have such a section (Mike Dunn, Rory McLeod). On the basis of this survey, it is clear that the current "status quo" is that the World Grand Prix is a continuation of the World Open, and I suggest we proceed on that basis for now. I have changed Murphy's timeline to conform to the others. Nigej (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigej: please could you find a source for us that says they're the same tournament? You seem very convinced that they are, so there must be a source that says so... Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: You've completely misunderstood my position. I don't really care whether they are regarded as separate or the same. What I care about is that we have a consistent approach across the wp:snooker project. Given the amount of effort required and in the absence of proof either way, it seems to me that it is much simpler to move to one position than the other and that is the main reason why I'm recommending it. If you were to make changes to all the 100 odd pages necessary to move to the other position in a consistent manner, I would have no complaints. What I object to is someone who lazily reverts one edit without following through all the consequences of that action. Nigej (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Fair enough then. Thanks for clarifying. Let's see where the conversation leads us then. And maybe more evidence will come to light through sources as time goes by.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Proposal to split World Grand Prix results to World Grand Prix (snooker)?

[edit]

The consensus is that there should be a split after this new revelation:

*New Info!!! Note, a calendar for the next season was published [4], and World Open will be played in China in July 2016, and World Grand Prix will be played in UK in Feb 2017. So, split immediately please. 95.135.111.186 (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Two editors who recommended against a split have recommended a split after this new information. As Betty Logan noted below, the players' articles links will need to be corrected to point to the correct article.

Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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.

This article up until March used to include the World Grand Prix results (the 2015 and 2016 entries in the table) until this was contested by Armbrust. Armbrust contested the view that the World Grand Prix was not a rebranded continuation of the World Open, but a new tournament and removed the WGP results. He provided sources that referred to it as the "inaugural" tournament. This was contested by several editors who pointed out that World Grand Prix held the same spot on the calendar, had the same broadcaster and also used the historic Grand prix/World Open trophy which had the previous winners engraved on the trophy alongside those of the World Grand Prix. An IP editor initiated a cut and paste move which was subsequently reverted. This led to me proposing a rename at #Requested move 11 March 2016 for the article (to move the article to the World Grand Prix page) but the proposed move resulted in a "no consensus".

The question remains over what to do with the World Grand prix results. An IP is persisting in removing the results, effectively splitting the World Grand Prix content to its own article. The problem with this is that it has implications for performance table in the player articles. Case in point: if you look at Judd_Trump#Performance_and_rankings_timeline, you will see there is an entry for the World Grand Prix twelve tournaments down the list. This entry combines the World Open and World Grand Prix results as this article did: the problem though is that if a completely new article is created to house the World Grand Prix results the World Open/World Grand Prix entries in the performance tables need to be also split into separate entries too, otherwise the performance tables link to the wrong tournament. Up to 250 articles are affected in all.

So there are two options:

  • No split - We retain the status quo in accoridance with the "no consensus" result from the move discussion and house the World Grand Prix results at the World Open article, and thus retaining the internal link integrity.
  • Split - We split out the World Grand Prix results to its own article, but this will necessitate the fixing of the entries in the performance tables at the player articles that are effected by the split.

Betty Logan (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Well, the trophy is a written record of the winners of the event, so I would say that's quite a compelling source. But even if we do decide to split the results out what do you propose should be done about the World Open/World Grand Prix entries in the performance tables? Are you willing to go through these 200 articles fixing them or are you suggesting we leave them in a broken state? After all, there is not much point creating a new article if all the performance tables link to the World Open article, is there? Betty Logan (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Analyze of the trophies' records is original researh and not shown in the reliable sources. The "same spot on the calendar" and "the same broadcaster" are not relevant things here. Split entries in the performance tables, of course. 95.135.111.186 (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of the trophy is not "original research". It is a record of the event. Recording names on a trophy is no different to recording names in book. But will you please stop evading the point about the damage your edits have caused to the performance tables. If the consensus is to go ahead with the split are you prepared to do the follow-up work and fix the performance tables on the player articles, or are you going to persist in leaving them in a broken state? Betty Logan (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If no split, then article 2016 World Grand Prix will be linked to World Open (snooker) as main article. Really nonsense. 95.135.111.186 (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop misrepresenting the problem to RFC respondents. If you look at the Judd Trump example I give in the RFC outline then anyone can plainly see the World Grand Prix link spans all the seasons from 2005/2006 up to 2015/2016. This link in turn links to THIS article. If you split the WGP results from this article then the World Grand Prix entry in the performance table needs to be replaced by two entries on two different rows, linking to the respective articles. Nigej explains the issue in clear and simple terms in the move discussion above. Someone who fails to recognize this very basic problem cannot be taken seriously in this discussion, because they are either unwilling or unable to acknowledge the fall-out from splitting the article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of the trophy is absolutely original research, because the trophy is a primary source, and reading names off the trophy counts as "interpreting" the primary source. WP:PRIMARYSOURCE says that Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. If a book or newspaper article tells us that the trophy is the same and they're the same event, then we can go with that, but we can't make that determination ourselves.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, although the trophy in 2010 and earlier may be the same one as is used now, the tournament apparently used a different trophy between 2011 and 2014 when it was the Haikou World Open. Here is Shaun Muprhy lifting the 2014 World Open: [5], while this is him lifting this year's World Grand Prix: [6]  — Amakuru (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No split 100% agree with Betty Logan above. Seems to be the most pragmatic approach at the moment. Nigej (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split - there was no consensus in the move discussion that the World Open should be considered as the same as the World Grand Prix, and furthermore, no reliable source was found to tell us they are the same tournament, other than a rather WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH observation that the trophy used is the same one. If they were the same tournament, sources would say they were the same, but nobody has producwed a single such source, and in fact the official website in 2015,[7] and all the other sources presented by Armbrust above, tell us that the event began and was inaugurated in 2015. The fact that there may be work involved in correcting some existing articles and performance tables that imply they are the same tournament shouldn't be a hindrance to splitting the articles if that's the correct thing to do, and I'm happy to do the legwork on that if the decision is to split. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No split I think the same page can be used because the World Grand Prix clearly has taken a lot from the Grand Prix which ran from 2004-2009. They have almost the same name and the same trophy. Off course if there s no split the name of the page should be World Grand Prix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woutspaas (talk • contribs)
  • New Info!!! Note, a calendar for the next season was published [8], and World Open will be played in China in July 2016, and World Grand Prix will be played in UK in Feb 2017. So, split immediately please. 95.135.111.186 (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be the coup-de-gras. Looks like we'll need to split. Nigej (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It settles the above question of whether the article should be split but it still leaves us with the massive problem of undertaking the split. There is still not much advantage to having a second article when all the player articles continue to link to this article through the WGP link, so will the editors who perform the split please ensure that the World Open and World Grand Prix entries at the player articles (as in the case of the Judd Trump example I highlight above) links at these articles are also corrected. Amakuru offered to help out above, but since 95.135.111.186 was the editor to carry out the split it is really his responsibility to ensure that the articles are fixed. Betty Logan (talk) 19:46, 6 May 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.

Post-RfC notes

[edit]

Please ensure that both articles address the confusing shared-trophy situation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Open_(snooker)&oldid=1201380187"