Talk:2024 Welsh Open (snooker)

WST getting it wrong - again.[edit]

@Nigej, Lee Vilenski, and AmethystZhou: I've just added a WST reference to the article for yesterday's qualifying matches. It says, wrongly, that Hossein Vafaei "top scored with 91." He did not. He got 103 in frame 2. The WST match record also has it wrong. CueTracker has it right, but SnookerInfo has not recorded it, probably because they are following WST. I just watched the frame on Discovery+ and Vafaei definitely got 103 called by referee Nico De Vos. So the question is, how do we resolve referencing data which we know is wrong from our primary source, while a blacklisted source gets it right? Alan (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was clearly a scoring issue during the frame. The score on the TV freezes at 42-9 (break started at 33-9). Break is clearly 103, 10 reds, 6 blacks, 4 pinks + 27. snookerinfo has corrected itself now, so that's one less issue (perhaps he looked here!). As to the issue for us: one solution is to abandon the centuries for now. Not too tempting since I suspect our readers are interested in these. Or just hope that WST get there act together. Nigej (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was something odd going on. Between frames 2 and 3, Nico De Vos had a long discussion with Rob Spencer but I couldn't hear what they were saying. I'll make a note in the prose for now. Alan (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and I think it highly unlikely that WST will "get their act together" any time soon. The new live scores pages are awful, prioritising presentation over content. They get all of the Chinese players' names wrong, which I see as disrespect. And this morning they are showing Andy Lee as being from mainland China rather than Hong Kong. Alan (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not just ignore the disparity here and say he won 4-1? We don't have to include every century break made in prose. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good call - but the problem remains since I have included it in the centuries list. Alan (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Less so now that snookerinfo includes it. Nigej (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK - removed from prose. Alan (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the century list issue, but that's a bad issue in general. If sources differ on information, either source both pieces of information, or just remove is my rule of thumb. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've added SnookerInfo as a reference to the centuries list now. Alan (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's awful. Looks like the website update is just a re-skin, and they have fixed none of the live score issues. And now that they've taken down the old live score site, those data is just gone! The German Masters qualifiers, for example: [1] None of the matches have frame scores... AmethystZhou (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least we've got the snapshot archives for all of those. Alan (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AmethystZhou: They don't seem to be able to get anything right. This report says "Matthew Selt won a 75-minute decider..." but the frame actually lasted 86 minutes (I just checked). Not really too much of a problem but your prose says, correctly, that the frame "lasted more than 80 minutes" which disagrees with the source. So it might be better to change it to say simply that the frame "lasted more than an hour." Alan (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is steadily going down the route to non-RS status, and we'd be crippled if we couldn't use the governing body as a source for it's own events. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a sorry state of affairs. It would help (a bit) if we could somehow get CueTracker off the blacklist. Alan (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure having access to a statistics site would solve the issues with prose level issues. It just means we'd have to rely even more heavily on sites like BBC and Eurosport, and the Snooker Scene magazine. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seed numbers lost after 1st round?[edit]

As per comment on the German Masters page, why for the last couple of tournaments have we started deleting seeding numbers after the 1st round? This is useful information that takes up little space and has always been shown in the past? Rio309w (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion. Alan (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I hadn't seen that discussion. I would strongly favour keeping the seeding numbers throughout, using whichever draw bracket format works best visually. It's confusing having to trace back to the start of a 64- or 128- entry draw to see what seed number (if any) the semi finalists are! I can't think of any examples from any sport in any medium where I've seen the seed numbers hidden once you get part way into a draw.[copying this comment into the original thread in case that's still the active one] Rio309w (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frame scores discrepancy between WST and snooker.org[edit]

Can anyone with a recording of the final check the 11th frame? WST live score page says 22-101 (85), but snooker.org says 21-101 (85). AmethystZhou (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a video of the match and indeed it should be 22-101. AmethystZhou (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]