User talk:Samasnookerfan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 My Talk page 1.1 Future of article 2 Mark Williams 3 Re:Great Images 4 List of snooker referees

[edit] My Talk page

If you have any queries about my articles, please leave your comments here. Samasnookerfan (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future of article

The article is now at Top-16 snooker players. It is questionable whether this article should exist. "Almost a champion" is not an encyclopedically defining characteristic of someone, generally. I've not nominated it for deletion (yet), as I think a broader discussion needs to happen with regard to what to do about articles of this sort (especially with regard to sports). I will bring the matter up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports if you are interested. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Williams

Hi, what is your ref. for the "Sprog" nickname? A "citation" tag will be needed otherwise. All the best, bigpad (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is where I found out this was his nickname, if you look at his profile on here: http://www.snooker.org/plr/bio/mwilliams.shtml Samasnookerfan (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's Hermund's site and the data very old but fair enough!! Still, maybe better for us to put the wider known nickname first: are you ok to do this? bigpad (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no problem at all. Samasnookerfan (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've reverted your last edit to the above as there's too much speculation it it: "widely considered" etc. There was nothing wrong with my tidy-up of the intro. Please don't revise it. But keep up the good work of adding *facts where more facts are needed or useful in various articles (e.g. that Hendry has equalled Davis' record of 20 years in the Top-16). Intros to articles need to be clean and punchy, not cluttered. bigpad (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message on My Talk. You're a font of snooker information. I think the key is where to add it into various articles. I didn't know Williams was colour blind .bigpad (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, you have done a lot of work on Mark Williams and it is well researched; good on you! On the other hand, and at the risk of sounding churlish, I wonder if it, and articles of other leading snooker players, need to be so biographical and to document their careers year by year or match by natch, almost? The article is part of an enclyopedia and not a potted biography. Let's imagine that a reader is curious about snooker and checks out the articles on the leading players. Would he or she be prepared to read through a blow-by-blow account of their career? Probably not. But if the player's main achievements were documented with perhaps a summary of career highlights, not necessarily covering every year, wouldn't the effect be better? I was referred to the article on Adam Gilchrist as one that was very good. I don't agree actually but it could be a model for you to follow.

So my advice would be to make sure that the key information is there: cut out things that are not necessary (e.g. the ref. to being beaten by a heavier boxer) and see how you progress. I might add this reply to the Williams' talk page and see what people think. All the best, bigpad (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Great Images

Hi Samas,
Thanks for your kind compliments - I appreciate it! :) Congrats on your own pictures - they've got interesting subject matter and good composition/focus. The only thing I think that's letting you down in terms of image quality is your camera! Anyway thanks again, --Fir0002 22:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of snooker referees

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of snooker referees, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of List of snooker referees.

Now that all of that boilerplate is out of the way: This list serves no purpose not served by Category:Snooker referees. There are already way, way too many redundant snooker lists; it will be a lot more productive for you to work on improving existing articles instead of creating more lists that will probably either be deleted or merged.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, and thats what i'm focusing on now anyway. Samasnookerfan (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)