Shortcut

Requested move at Talk:David Gilbert (snooker player)#Requested move 2 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:David Gilbert (snooker player)#Requested move 2 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Split and scroll of Performance and rankings timeline

Hi, I’d like to propose dividing large tournament result tables into smaller sections.

Currently, the tables can be scrolled, but on a PC, it’s not immediately apparent that they are scrollable (the bottom scroll bar is far outside the visible area). Dividing the data into four smaller tables would make it easier to edit and view the information.

I’ve already implemented this solution on another wiki, and I believe it could be beneficial for users of other languages as well ;)

Does that sound good?

Best regards, Nux (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support anything that makes these pages more easy to navigate. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good - like the idea to hide the performance table legend by default. Far easier to navigate. Andygray110 (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing this isn't a change we can automate, right? It's a manual process? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... 300+ pages... probably worth automating this. I already have some semi-automatic script, so I think I can try to do this en masse. It should be doable, as long as the tables are similar enough. Nux (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it's nearer 500, I would have thought that all articles within have some sort of setup for this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-snooker editor but I would like everyone to take a look at WP:DTT before commenting on the method that is currently used as opposed to the method that is more navigable. It’s a solution but it’s a solution that has been around to help support users who use screen readers or who are visually impaired. Specific topics: MOS:COLHEAD and MOS:TABLECAPTION (for legend captions). cc: @Andygray110, @Lee Vilenski, @Nux Thanks, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 12:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’d also support the removal of the 15% downgrade in size (makes it hard to read) and changing the gray text to black. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 12:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't support removal of size downgrade, it would make the tables even harder to navigate. 15% reduction is fine per MOS:SMALL. Andygray110 (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did a contrast test and it seems like we can keep the small font... as long as background colors are modified. Modified page test (invalid contrast before background changes). Test page here: User:Nux/test snooker player timeline. The problems are links which are relatively light (#3366CC) and so background in cells have to be even lighter. Nux (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not the issue I mentioned, I mentioned the use of gray, particularly #555555 ( ), text instead of black test which is hard to see at a small font without zooming in. If it was black, like what is shown on Mink Nutcharut, it’ll be better to read. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 16:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cowboygilbert that gray is not a problem. It gives great contrast of 7.45:1 which is fine even for the most strict WCAG AAA. See e.g.: https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ Nux (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you need to re-read what I wrote. I said with the small font, it’s hard to see. The contrast checker uses a 12 point normal size font while the font used the tables should be around 9-10 point font. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should look at this test:
https://wave.webaim.org/report#/https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nux/test_snooker_player_timeline&oldid=1269628779
Contrast of link over white is 5.36:1. The gray you mention (#555555) is actually darker then the link color (7.45:1). Again. In this table there are much, much worse colors due to using links in the table. Font size is the same for all cells so that is not a problem. Nux (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do need to meet DTT. My support is on the basis of turning it into more than one table. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I recall, and I did some work with WCAG, more sections are good. Screen reader users typically navigate using sections, so I think sections should be even better than just splitting tables mentioned in DTT. Nux (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All in support for any changes to improve the Performance Ranking table, however just like the last time this was proposed [mid-2024, by myself no less on a slightly different format], nobody makes the change and thus nothing ends up changing. If you intend to propose the idea, then I'd rather it just be done under the "Be Bold" rules, rather than waiting for wider community support in every new discussion, because there's been plenty of support -- directly or implied -- over the years for improving the table, but the action hasn't been taken. --CitroenLover (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Texaco International Charity Snooker Challenge

A report in the September 1995 issue of Pot Black magazine says that Allison Fisher defeated Dieter Johns (187 points to 20; including a 107 break), Peter Ebdon, and then John Parrott 254-116 in the final, to retain the Texaco International Charity Snooker Challenge title. Jimmy White, Steve Davis, Terry Griffiths, Willie Thorne, amateur Mark Davis (or Davies) were the other participants in 1995. Len Ganley was the referee and David Vine presented the prizes? Has anyone seen this event in any other sources? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Have you seen this? It's a "fansite" so I'm not sure if you can use it for a citation.  Alan  (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eurosport becomes TNT

Now that Eurosport has become TNT, any citations we have that point to www.eurosport.com will be redirected to www.tntsports.co.uk. Some of these redirects work OK, and some don't. For those that give a "404" error, we will need to change |url-status=live to |url-status=dead, assuming the citation has an archive. I've already done a couple, but there are loads more to do. For those Eurosport citations without archives, we are, I think, stumped. The "Wayback Machine" behaves in the same way (geoblocking) with TNT articles that it did with Eurosport. But "Ghost Archive" works OK with such articles.  Alan  (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AlH42 eurosport.com will only redirect to tntsports.co.uk when someone views the site from the UK and Ireland: elsewhere, it will still continue to operate as is. We don't really need to migrate the citations, beyond archiving as needed, but there is probably an exercise that could be done to move away from using Eurosport links as a verifiable source in most cases due to all the geoblocking issues and loss of access to these sources anyway (eg if there is an article in the Metro talking about the same stuff as a Eurosport article, replace the citation with a link to the Metro article instead). --CitroenLover (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should stop using Eurosport/TNT unless it is absolutely necessary. However, the Metro is not regarded as a reliable source. Better to use the BBC, the Guardian etc.  Alan  (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is: the BBC and Guardian barely report on snooker tournaments [I have hardly ever seen the Guardian reporting on snooker, would like a link to see their reporting]: indeed the BBC will only really actively report on their own tournaments and then the odd daily round-up for random tournaments, and even then, sometimes their reporting is from other regions' reporters [see: Richard Petrie doing daily reports on the Scottish Open which were completely focused on Mark Allen and nobody else]. If we want to use snooker sources, totallysnookered.com and snookerhq.com may be better sources if we're forbidden from using the Metro. I also don't know why we don't allow Metro links when its in the context of the snooker reporting, as Phil Haigh does an excellent job interviewing players and the like, it feels like we are intentionally restricting ourselves from a source that is quite actively involved in following the sport. --CitroenLover (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Guardian does do snooker from time to time. See this for example. I think totallysnookered.com and snookerhq.com are regarded as "fansites" and should therefore be avoided. We, unfortunately, need to rely very much on the WST.  Alan  (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...and we're not forbidden from using the Metro, it's just not regarded as reliable. See this.  Alan  (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the Metro's snooker coverage is from Phil Haigh, a respected snooker journalist who co-hosts the Talking Snooker podcast. Whatever about the rest of the Metro, his snooker articles should always be regarded as reliable information. I've found far more mistakes in BBC articles than in his pieces in the Metro. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...and delving a little deeper, the Metro is (apparently) OK to use for snooker. See this.  Alan  (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Returning to the Eurosport/TNT problem (although the discussion about the Metro is interesting), we really do need to "migrate the citations" as I would think that the majority of readers of our articles are in the United Kingdom and Ireland, for whom these citations will not now work.  Alan  (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:SNOOKER
No tags for this post.