Talk:2004 European Open (snooker)

Lost/forfeiting

Resolved

Regarding this, "forfeit" is correct. It doesn't have to be voluntary. Christopher Connor (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This part of the Rules of snooker is completely unsourced. The sourced doesn't mention this situation. This by World Snooker says: "Stephen Maguire made breaks of 68, 50, 60 and 66 in a 4-0 win over Peter Lines, and will now play Dominic Dale, who beat Bjorn Haneveer 4-1 despite losing the second frame by a score of 12-0 after missing a red he could see three times in a row." Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Can you explain what you mean? I'm not sure what another article (Rules of snooker) and that source has to do with anything. Also, why do you keep edit warring? A discussion was ongoing but you still felt the need to force your version in the meantime. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no source that states, that missing the object ball three times in a row, if it is visible, means that the player forfeites the frame. And the source doesn't say forfeiting. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"Forfeit" is just an ordinary dictionary word; see Merriam Webster ("to lose or lose the right to especially by some error, offense, or crime") and Wiktionary ((1) "To suffer the loss of something by wrongdoing or non-compliance", (2) "To lose a contest, game, match, or other form of competition by voluntary withdrawal, by failing to attend or participate, or by violation of the rules"). We don't need the source to say an ordinary dictionary word to use it. Armbrust, now you're just making yourself look silly. The RfA established that you kept on making these daft mistakes and focused too much on minor things, then edit-warring to keep them in. When you're wrong, you insist you're right and eventually you realise you weren't. But then it happens again and keeps continuing. Can you not see a pattern? I'm surprised that you don't seem to be taking the advice on board. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed an ordinary dictionary word, and doesn't mean what you think it means. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If you think, you can revert it, but then i will ad {{cn}} to it. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That would appear to be mightily POINTy behaviour. Instead of saying that if I did something you'll go and take action, why not respond to the rather lengthy comment I made above? The first step to dispute resolution is discussion between the editors. When one person tries to discuss in a constructive way, and the other person just says "if you do that, I'll retaliate", it doesn't look good for the latter. It basically forces the matter to go further, rather than have it come to a place where both parties can agree on. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not pointy at all. I would support such tagging, since using "forfeit" here is clearly a novel synthesis of your personal interpretation of world snooker rules and your personal [mis]interpretation of some dictionary entries, not supported by snooker sources. Nor by usage of the terms "loss" and "forfeit" throughout the sports, gaming, political and other worlds. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is highly dubious to say "forfeiting". No source states, that violating this rule means the forfeiture of the player, but losing the frame is a fact. Losing this particular frame is true, but forfeiting is a speculation. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I quite understood that. If we change it to "forced to forfeit", would you agree on that? Christopher Connor (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for this claim, then ok. But I doubt you have. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've already explained it's a dictionary word so we don't need it to appear in the source exact. If the word used accurately describes what's said in the source, that's enough to use that word in the article. Since we don't seem to be getting anywhere I'll open a thread at the NORN noticeboard for more input if you agree with this (OR noticeboard seems to be the most appropriate venue for this). Christopher Connor (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Dispute over "forfeit" vs. "lost". Christopher Connor (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be much activity at the OR board, I'll continue the discussion here. This source uses the word forfeit to describe the situation but in a different match. The rules at the World Snooker site say the frame is "awarded" to the opponent. Basically the circumstances fit the definition of "forfeit". Christopher Connor (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think not, because the player don't make the shot intentionally as a miss. As the "awarded to the opponent" is in the rules it can be used instead of lost and should be used instead of forfeit. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand the definition of "forfeit"? I gave it above from dictionaries, but your comments lead me to suspect you don't. It doesn't matter whether the player makes it intentionally or not; see the definition. One of the sources says "forfeit" to describe the same situation—what have you got to say about that? Christopher Connor (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

By my understanding of the word, the use of "forfeit" would be legitimate in this context. However, if some editors are not happy with the term, why not just use the phrasing in the rules and say "The frame was awarded to Maguire after White violated the 'three miss' rule". It's only a note after all, it just has to clarify the nature of events. Betty Logan (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. The difference has nothing to do with voluntariness or intention, but whether the rules is of the game play itself (loss) or of the administration/running of the content (forfeit). It's a stark, black-and-white difference. The three-misses rule violation is a loss. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you don't want to accept anything than "forfeit" and to reach this goal, you are clearly not capable to reach a compromise. As Betty Logan says: "The frame was awarded to Maguire after White violated the 'three miss' rule" is the rule-compliant wording. What you (CC) do could be interpreted as a border-line forum shopping. After the WP:NORN was not quick enough for you, and my answer was not to your likening, you notified WT:SNOOKER. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why can't you answer a simple question? Was the use of "forfeit" in The Times incorrect? Why are you saying I cannot reach a compromise, instead of discussing the issue at hand? Betty says the use of forfeit is "legitimate" and "correct". The proposed wording matches the definition of forfeit. I have already explained why the word "forfeit" doesn't need to appear in the source, yet you still have difficulty understanding this. Also, why have you posted struck-out text? I'll respond to these points anyway. The NOR board is inactive and didn't come to a conclusion. Since we couldn't seem to get anywhere, I posted at the Snooker project for more input. By any definition, that is not forum-shopping. Christopher Connor (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

As an outside observer wandering into this discussion from WT:SNOOKER (i.e. someone not invested in the debate) I have to say that I agree with the observation that you do not appear to be willing to compromise and appear to be entirely insistent upon "forfeit", for reasons that do not hold up under scrutiny. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that I was not precise enough. I mean't a reliable source about the rules, not one match. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should try to hold a discussion instead of giving non-answers. The source described the incident as a forfeit; all such incidents are a forfeit. Christopher Connor (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To "forfeit" a game/match/contest means that the win is awarded to your opponent in an involuntary context. Such as when Maguire lost a frame over the chalk incident, it would be correct to say he forfeited a frame. When John Virgo had a few frames awarded against him in the 1979 UK, it would be correct to say he forfeited several frames after his late arrival to the match. To "lose" a frame generally means that the outcome is decided competitively. To "concede" a frame means that you have surrendered it voluntarily. To "forfeit" means that you lose the frame through being penalised, often for a transgression of the rules. I think the usage of "forfeit" is correct to describe this situation. I honestly don't think we need a source to use the word because unless "forfeit" has a specific meaning within the rules of snooker then the word can be applied generally. Betty Logan (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That's all correct except your conclusion (and the niggle that a concession is a form of forfeit - forfeits do not have to be involuntary, they simply aren't "decided competitively" as you very aptly put it. As the three-misses rule is part of the rules of actual game play (competition), violating it must, by definition, be a loss rather than a forfeit. "Forfeit" does have a specific meaning within sports, including snooker. I elaborate below. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I take it then, since you haven't responded, that you finally agree it's acceptable? Christopher Connor (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted it, because it seems to me, that there is consensus for the use of "forfeit", not because I agree. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that solves the immediately problem. You say you still disagree so it may be worth going over the discussion to see why we don't need forfeit to appear in the source. Betty and I have tried to explain, and there's nothing more I can do about that. If you accept its usage, that's it as far as I'm concerned. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A "consensus" of a handful of people who do not understand the difference between two words is not a meaningful consensus. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

[Outdent from and in response to entire thread thus far] I have gone point-by-point through some of this, but much of it is not germane to why I'm commenting here (in response to this discussion being flagged at WT:SNOOKER). To summarize this in one go: The difference between "loss" and "forfeit" is not a snooker issue, or even a cue sports matter more generally, at all, but basic and very simple sports terminology, with a quite clear difference. A forfeit is failure or lack/revocation of permission to compete (further or at all), because of something that a) you do voluntarily (by declaration, e.g., conceding mid-game because you have to leave your match to deal with an emergency), b) by default (e.g., because you didn't show up for your game), or c) by referee/tournament director/governing body declaration (e.g., because you punched your opponent in the face, used steroids, wrote a bad check for your entry fee, etc.). Forfeits are part of the rules around a game for its smooth operation, but are not part of the rules of a game proper. The three consecutive misses rule in snooker, analogous to the three consecutive fouls rule in nine-ball (one probably derives from the other, though which way I'm not sure), is an on-the-table rule of of the game and its play, not an off-table rule about the game and conducting it. Your opponent winning because of a rule of of the game play, such as the rule in question here, is your loss, not forfeit. A three-miss violation, like its pool counterpart, is especially obviously a loss not a forfeit because either your opponent craftily put you in a position to fail by that rule, or you are less than maximally competent and put yourself there. Either way, that is 100% game play, and 0% contest administration, ergo a loss by definition, and cannot possibly be a forfeit. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I can see your point, though I often hear the commentators refer to it as a forfeit, and some news reports say that too. I don't know if the basic definition of forfeit has to refer strictly to a violation of a rule outside of gameplay and I'm not aware that the word has a special definition in a sporting context. Anyway it's not something I'll be pursuing as it's a minor matter in my opinion. (I think this thread brought up several issues: OR, sourcing, correct use of terminology.) Christopher Connor (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Right. As for the commentators and sportswriters, a few imprecise usages don't make a rule. If World Snooker changes its published rules to use the term "forfeit" then we have a source. The DicDef argument doesn't hold up, because most dictionaries don't actually support the "it's a forfeit" interpretation to begin with, and they aren't sport-specific works. Just because it's not something outrageous like a claim that space aliens invented snooker doesn't make it non-problematic under WP:NOR, WP:SOAPBOX, etc., to insist upon using a particular word not supported by reliable sources (and a few sports journalists using "forfeit" where most don't, and most non-journo sources don't, doesn't constitute reliable sourcing for anything other than that some sports journalists aren't choosy about their wording. :-) Anyway, I heartily agree that the case brings up all three of the issues you mention. I think it should really be a discussion, more broadly, at WT:SPORT. That WikiProject badly needs a Manual of Style sub-page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there was any need to go through the thread and make point-by-point responses, and I don't think it's as black and white as you make it out to be. Like I said, the word is widely used by snooker commentators who must presumably know something about sporting terminology. Even Clive Everton uses it in his reports so you must also be accusing him of misusing terminology. Based on that I think accusations of OR are a bit extreme. So too when you say I'm not willing to compromise when I already have (see above), and before anyone has put forward such a well(if forcefully)-argued rationale as yours. You seem to be rather aggressive about this, and about saying I was insisting on using the word (when that's not the case), when Armbrust did not make the argument about misuse of terminology but put forward a stubborn resistance just because a specific word didn't appear in the source; it's clear he didn't have the misuse of terminology in mind otherwise he would have articulated it. You say the usage isn't supported in reliable sources, but I've shown above that it is. And a link to SOAPBOX is wholly inappropriate here. I agree more stuff about these issues should be put down in guidelines; perhaps you could start this yourself? Christopher Connor (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A dragged-out editwar over one word that has spiraled out of control into a misplaced debate on a random user page and a noticeboard alert, instead of simply being a normal consensus discussion at the article talk page, or maybe brought up as a general non-snooker-specific discussion at WT:SPORT, is to me strong evidence of soapboxing (on both sides perhaps - I should not have singled you out). I call them as I see them, and am not taking anyone's side, or opposing anyone's side, for any kind of personal reason. I apologize if I've misunderstood your actions, position or intention, but you have seemed to me to have had an axe to grind on this "forfeit" issue, and perhaps I just plain misread you. On the issue of commentators' use of "forfeit", I'll reiterate and rephrase: Off-the-cuff usage by commentators doesn't trump the published, world-standardised rules, even if more than one commentator does it (especially given that more than one don't). If the rules don't use a term as specific, specialized and meaning-laden as "forfeit", then the best that can be done with this word, under WP policy at WP:NOR and WP:V, in the context of White's three-miss fault and of the rule in general, is to avoid the word. Maybe reword the White passage and footnote so that it says that his opponent "won" because of the fault, and not use "loss" or "forfeit" of White himself (though I don't see a real justification for such circumlocution), and maybe, if consensus feels the issue warrants any attention at all, mention at the snooker rules article that some commentators refer to this fault as as a forfeit while others and the rules themselves do not. Even that seems completely unnecessary and unwarranted. I feel, personally, that this is about as important/sensible as going on at length at the Lord of the Rings article that some people, including review writers and many other people who should know better, incorrectly refer to it as a "trilogy". Neither pass the WP:RELEVANCE and WP:COMMON tests for me. PS: Phrasing like "was awarded a win" or something like that (someone suggested some such phrasing somewhere in this debate on one of the at least three pages on which is being held), to imply some kind of debate and decision by tournament judges or referees would be blatant OR absent evidence of any such active ruling. I'd bet more money than I have that it didn't happen, since it wasn't anything that required any such discussion and adjudication, being a simple matter of the rules of game play, like having to shoot away from the object ball when the cue ball is frozen to it, or not shooting at a colour ball unless after potting a red, or any other plain rule of the game. As for WP:SPORT guidelines, I've been working on it a tiny bit at a time, and hope others have too. I started with WP:CUESPELL, for cue sports, but some of that and much of WP:CUENOT can be generalized out to sports more broadly. I've seen here and there similar efforts in other sports. Will take a lot of work to find and merge them. Anyway, sorry again for being irritating. I must have misinterpreted your position on the matter. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation that "forfeit" is clearly confined to administrative rulings within sport. In accordance with its general definition it would not be a misuse of English to say the player has "forfeited four points" if he fouls for instance. Anyway, I suggested the phrasing "awarded the frame" because this is the terminology used in the actual rule that was applied. I don't see the point in arguing over terminology if the rule book itself provides an adequate terminology. Betty Logan (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2004 European Open (snooker)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll give this article a read through and list any points below. Miyagawa (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Review: Was this the final time it was known as the European Open (did it change back from Malta Cup?). If it was the final time the tournament was called this, then it might be worth mentioning that in the lead.  Done

• Was the Open held in France from 1989 until 1997/98? It just might be cleared to say something like "The European Open was held from 1989 onwards in Deauville, France, but was suspended between 1997/1998 and 2000/2001." No need to say why it was suspended for those years as it'd be going off topic for this article. :)
  • Corrected to the following: "The European Open was first held in 1989 in Deauville, France, and was suspended for 1997/1998 and 2000/2001.", as the event was held in Deauville only 1989 and didn't take place in the mentioned seasons. [7]

• "The defending champion was also O'Sullivan..." might be useful to say "The defending European Open champion was also..." just to make it clear to the reader that you're not referring to O'Sullivan as being the defending Welsh Open champion from the previous sentence.  Done

• Round 1: "After the match Hendry—the world number two and a seven-time world championsaid"; the wikilink to world champion needs to have said moved out of it.  Done

• Final: I'd switch around the first and second paragraphs to make the section flow better.  Done

• The Note needs to go into a Notes section. It can be left exactly where it is, just put ==Notes== on the line above it.  Done

• References: Was concerned initially that the blueyonder Snooker Archive might be an issue, but it's maintained by a sports writer (for example here: [8]), so it's no issue. Just needed to clarify that here for future reference should someone else want to use that link in a different snooker related GA/FA application. :)

Not going to put the article on hold because I think it's only a few minor points and they'll be sorted quite quickly. Nice article, well done! Let me know once you've addressed those issues, and I'll come back and have another look. Miyagawa (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Looks all set, happy to promote this one to GA. Miyagawa (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)