Talk:World Snooker Tour

Article move

Q-School itself doesn't warrant an article, but there is a need to cover professional qualification (Challenge Tour/PIOS/Q-School/wildcards) and tour structure. A comprehensive article should be developed around these themes. I picked the name "World Snooker Tour" to match the official name of the tour (http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/Tournaments/WorldSnookerTour). Betty Logan (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

There is far too much use of italics in this article. Italics are primarily for names of books only Billsmith60 (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Excessive italics removed. Andygray110 (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Main Tour" terminology

I think use of the term "Main Tour" is outdated in this article in most places. I think we can make clear that from 1997–2020 this was correct but that the term "World Snooker Tour" is correct from 2020 onwards. Andygray110 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the article

In 2011 I created this article to provide an overview the corporate structure of the professional tour. The article remained in that form for over 13 years, until a couple of months ago when TheVictoriaHarbourer overhauled the article. Some of the edits were positive, but he also extended the scope of the article to include a results table: [1].

The table essentially replicates the table at Triple_Crown_(snooker)#Career_Triple_Crown_winners, with the Saudi Masters thrown in for good measure. There are a couple of issues with this:

The WC, UK, Masters and Saudi Masters are not a recognised grouping. If they were, an article detailing the four "majors" would exist, in much the same way an article about the triple crown exists.
The other issue is the replication of the table. The triple crown article already provides the proper version of this table, so it does not need to be included in an article detailing the corporate structure of the tour i.e. tournament results do not come under the scope of the article. It just creates redundancy which requires updating. It also detracts from the main focus of the article IMO.

I have removed it for now per WP:STATUSQUO. If TheVictoriaHarbourer strongly feels the table should be included then he should advance a case for it and obtain a consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest removing the table from the Awards section too. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BennyOnTheLoose. I think the table gives a concise overview of what the top players have achieved. In terms of simplifying or changing the scope of the table I am all for it; however it really should, at least by some degree, have somewhere to mention the top players in the tour. TheVictoriaHarbourer (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think you are already aware that I have reorganised the WST Awards article a bit (I see you did a lot to the article - props for that). But for the general audience I think a short summary is better for them to understand, instead of going through all the awardees from 1981 to them. TheVictoriaHarbourer (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]