Talk:2017–18 snooker season

Snooker Start‑class 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Colours in table

On my screen, it's hard to tell the ranking events from the non-ranking. Comparing the Riga Masters (ranking) with the preceding row (non-ranking) they're almost identically coloured. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The green pro-am highlighting shows up fine on my screen, although I appreciate that displays have different contrast/brightness levels which can cause trouble on some. However, I have exceptionally low contrast between the highlighting for the World Seniors Tour and that of variant events; I didn't even realize they were different colors until I looked at the key. Either way, when we use color to encode information we are required to ensure it meets MOS:CONTRAST. How does the green/pink combo at List of accolades received by La La Land (film) work for you? If it provides sufficient contrast we could replace the mint with the green and the World Seniors Tour—which is a new event—with the pink. Betty Logan (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Logan Looks great. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other colour but pink I think it looks terrible it's a bad colour imo. Any other colours we could use for the Seniors ?. 92.251.130.4 (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are not doing an art assignment here. If an editor tells you they have a problem differentiating the colors then we have to respond to that. I have no particular preference when it comes to the colors but there needs to be a decent contrast and the pink you have replaced with the blue for the WST highlighting does not provide sufficient contrast with the grey highlighting for the varaint event. For any other interested parties, here is the color scheme I installed if you care to comment. We could do with further feedback from Dweller too. Betty Logan (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well Betty you know you are doing an art assignment really if you want to get flippant about it, because that is exactly what you are doing changing colours so it is a little art assignment eh ?. To be honest I think the pink looks horrendous. Is there any other colour available?.92.251.130.4 (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The world Seniors Tour was light grey the variant event is a lilac colour how can people not tell the difference between them ?. 92.251.130.4 (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reasons why readers might have trouble differentiating them. Their displays may not be optimal or their brightness levels could be turned down (and Wikipedia should allow for that) and they may have poor eyesight (not everyone in the world has 20/20 vision). The colors should be chosen to provide a good contrast, not to look nice. If both can be achieved then great, but contrast is the primary concern. Betty Logan (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good colour contrast is great for lots of reasons. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make a few points. Personally, I did not have any bother with the previous shade of green used for the Pro-Am's. But, now that it has been changed, I do like the way the new shade stands out more. HOWEVER, now that the shade has been changed on the page for this season, would it not need to be changed on the pages for the previous seasons as well? For continuity.

On the other hand, I am having great difficulty differentiating the colours used for the Variant Events and the new World Seniors Tour. Since lilac has been used for Variant Events for a long time, perhaps the colour for the World Seniors Tour could be changed to something that stands out more.

Also, I realise that they are full ranking events, but it might be helpful if the Home Nations Series was given it's own colour, to show that the events are part of a series rather than stand alone events.

Finally, may I just add that I am still lamenting the loss of the IBSF, EBSA and ACBS amateur events from the season tables on Wikipedia. I always print off the Wikipedia table so that I can keep track of what is coming up (let's face it, it's much better than World Snooker's calendar), and I am having to manually add the amateur events to an off-line version of the table before I print it off.

I am sure I am not the only person who would like to see Wikipedia have the most comprehensive snooker season calendar possible. But, hey. Rules are rules.

Thank you to all the editors who put all the hard work into keeping these season pages up to date. You do a great job.

31.53.217.230 (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@31.53.217.230: I can hardly tell the difference between the senior tour and variant event either. I changed the senior tour to pink which you can see on an old version at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Snooker_season_2017/2018&oldid=788731637#Calendar, but unfortunately it was changed back. I do think we need a more contrasting color though. And yes, if the shade of green has been changed on this page it should be changed on the others too. The reason I didn't do this is because I wanted to settle the color scheme here first rather than spend an hour doing something that would just end up being reverted. Betty Logan (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan: Although the IP address is different (I think!), it's me again.

Thanks for the explanation. For me, that shade of pink you chose for the Seniors Tour was definitely better than the current colour. But, unfortunately, there's not much you can do if another editor disagrees.

I totally understand your frustrations at spending a considerable amount of time doing something that you think will be helpful, only for somebody to come along and revert it straight away. It happened to me a couple of months ago when I started a solo project to standardise the layout of the past results pages for individual Motorcycle Grands Prix (there are something like three different layouts being used across the pages, and I was trying to change them all to the layout that provided the most detail). And after I had spent a week getting the first 2 pages done, one of the regular editors undid everything and told me off.

That's the problem with Wikipedia. Some people just refuse to let any changes happen, even if it is to make things more user-friendly. But, hey!

86.171.13.117 (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World cup

More importantly this event has started and no one has created a page for the event ? Who usually does this for up and coming events?92.251.130.4 (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misunderstanding Wikipedia. There's no "usually". It needs someone to get their finger out. Nigej (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP editors cannot create articles. Once a draw is out we should perhaps create the page even if it is just a redirect to the main tournament so anonymous editors can work on it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, But why don't the regular IP editors register? Then they can create articles. One of those mysteries of life. Nigej (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question for those regular editors who live in the UK, but if you live in China or Russia for instance you probably won't want your editing history tied to a single account. I guess IP editors are just a fact of Wikipedia life for the time being. Betty Logan (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did register for an account once. I put in the same username that I use on a forum that I am a member of. But when I finished the registration process, Wikipedia decided that I meant to put a space in my username rather than an underscore. Except, I did mean to have an underscore! If I had meant it to be a space, I would have put in a space! So, ever since, I have been refusing to sign in ever since in protest, and have instead been editing as an IP user. 86.171.13.117 (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A technical reason for that I suspect. Wikipedia uses underscores and spaces interchangeably in page names. This is because spaces are not allowed in URLs and so underscores are used instead. Thus User talk:Betty Logan is the same as User talk:Betty_Logan. The problem for the rest of us is that people write things here (or on talk pages) and we're meant, by some psychic power, to work out who these IP users are. eg is 92.251.130.4 the same person as 86.171.13.117 ? No idea Nigej (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since I got my first started using the internet, I have always used underscores rather than dots or dashes to separate out words in e-mail addresses, usernames, etc. I have always preferred underscores, for the very reason that in computer coding an underscore is used as the equivalent of a space. So, when underscores are used in the URL's for Wikipedia pages, I can't understand why they can't be used in usernames. But, if that's the way the Wikipedia coding is designed to work, there's nothing we can do about it.

And to answer your question, I am afraid that I am not the same person as 92.251.130.4 (talk). But, I am the same person as 31.53.217.230 (talk) that posted in the Colours In Table section above.

Sorry for going off-topic. 86.171.13.117 (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 September 2017

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: not moved. Andrewa (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– MOS:DATERANGE, MOS:ENDASH. Sawol (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note These four things are leading articles. This WP:RM covers Snooker season 1975/1976 to Snooker season 2016/2017, Snooker world rankings 1976/1977 to Snooker world rankings 2017/2018, Snooker world ranking points 2005/2006 to Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018, and Template:Snooker season 1975/1976 to Template:Snooker season 2017/2018. Sawol (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The proposal is fundamentally flawed. Such a rename would make the articles relating to 2017/2018 season inconsistent with all the previous seasons, between Snooker season 1975/1976 and Snooker season 2016/2017. Also, MOS:DATERANGE states that "The slash notation (2005/2006) may be used to signify a fiscal year or other special period, if that convention is used in reliable sources", which is the case here. The slash notation denoting a specific season in snooker's calendar is favored by the official governing body as can be seen at http://www.wpbsa.com/rankings/archive/. Betty Logan (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The proposer says "This WP:RM covers Snooker season 1975/1976 to Snooker season 2016/2017, ..." so I can't see the point about being inconsistent with previous seasons. Nigej (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  The proposer did not initially state that the RM was for earlier seasons. If you compare the timestamps you will see he altered the proposal after I posted my comments. Betty Logan (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah. That explain things. Generally gives the impression that the proposal was not well thought through. Nigej (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose World Snooker use the slash notation (eg http://www.worldsnooker.com/full-calendar/ http://livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/) and they are the dominant organisation. snooker.org uses slash (http://www.snooker.org/res/index.asp?season=2017) although cuetracker uses dash (http://cuetracker.net/seasons/2017-2018). Overall it seems an unnecessary change. Nigej (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The slash format is permitted by for cases where a season (or whatever it is) spans a calendar year boundary but is not itself longer than a year. "2017–2018" implies a two-year season. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 22:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "The slash notation (2005/2006) may be used to signify a fiscal year or other special period, if that convention is used in reliable sources." from MOS:NUM Vlord1994 (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2017 (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.

Seniors tournament edit warring

There is currently a lot of reverting ongoing regarding constant changing of the colours of seniors tournaments. I am inviting any of those anonymous editors involved to please come here and discuss rather than continuing to revert (I have made one revert and have no interest in getting involved in a war). Personally, I feel the current scheme is not helpful to colour-blind users, as per [1]. The reason being the yellow currently being added in by an anonymous user is very similar to the gold colour used for non-ranking events, and there is not sufficient disparity between the two for a colour-blind user to detect the difference. Andygray110 (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not similiar to the gold at all. And colour blind users would be able to distinguish between yellow and gold anyway. Their problems relate to the colours Brown and Green and Red and green so it is no issue for them. thanks for the concern. Regards 01:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.169.53 (talk)

You're welcome. However your comments are not accurate regarding colour blindness, according to the Wikipedia article on colour-blindness which states that users can have trouble with yellow hues also - Color blindness#Types. There are two points to what I have said in any case - the colour issue, and the fact that there is constant reverting going on at the page. At present you are currently on the edge of violating WP:3RR (more than three reverts on a page within a 24-hour period) which could lead to you facing a block. I have brought the issue to this talk page to try and help you avoid this, so that you don't revert again if another user changes the content. Hopefully the other involved users will respond here. Andygray110 (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with AndyGray110. Yellow is very bad background colour here. I only reverted back the unconsensus changes made by ip user in the recent days. Admins, restore status quo please to scheme used before that ip user changes. I am for lightblue colour which widely used in the wiki sports tables. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You completely agree so that is it we change it back to what suits you ?. What happens if im having trouble seeing the blue and dont like it then ?. 92.251.169.53 (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's your personal problems. You are in minority. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should get to decide for me. Who gives you the authority to decide for me ?. I don't think so 92.251.169.53 (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at both colours they are not even close to each other ! 92.251.169.53 (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]