stringtranslate.com

Talk:2023 UK Championship

Seeds for qualifiers?

Why aren't the seedings for the qualifiers noted, like last year? "Numbers in parentheses after the players' names denote the top 32 seeded players"? There are currently no numbers in parentheses after the players' names. MisterRerack (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The top 16 are seeded through to the main stage, and the 17-32 seeds are playing in round 3 of the qualifying. The previous UK Championship pages had all the seeding information, but I only added the top 32 seeds to this one because most other tournament pages only note the top 32 seeds. A couple recent ones: English Open, Wuhan Open, Northern Ireland Open, International Championship. AmethystZhou (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The format for the UK Championship now matches the World Championship, which always includes the seeds for the qualifiers, from #17-#112 seeded and players ranked #113-#128 drawn randomly with the 16 (or so) amateurs, to make up 144 players competing in total. MisterRerack (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Home Nations only have 32 seeds, the UK Championship (like the World Championship) has 112 seeds! MisterRerack (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're probably right. If you want to put them all in then carry on, but be sure to use the same tooltip style as the top 32, not just plain parentheses as you just did for two players.  Alan  (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that, very interesting. Please feel free to add the seedings to all the players. Thank you! AmethystZhou (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done some of those. There are more to do.  Alan  (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did all of the players in the last 144 using the seeds from snooker.org. The rest should be a bit easier. If nobody else does it, I'll do it tomorrow morning. Got to go now.  Alan  (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, the bottom ranked 16 players (#113-#128) should NOT have a seeding number, as they are NOT seeded, but drawn randomly, along with the 16 amateurs. MisterRerack (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done.  Alan  (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I hadn't notice this discussion before editing the page. However the outcome of the discussion is incorrect. Seeeded players are those who take a fixed position in the draw based on their ranking. Now that the UK Championship format has changed to match the World Championship format, the main draw has 16 seeded players only. Yes for the qualifying draw, other players are seeded (from 17 all the way down to 112). But this becomes irrelevant once the qualifying tournament is complete as all 16 qualifiers enter the main draw unseeded and are drawn into positions at random. Rio309w (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great point and thanks for correcting the seeding system! Although I think it's somewhat useful (and interesting) to see the "seeding" numbers of all players, such as Mark Williams (9) vs. Jamie Clarke (60), etc. I added some clarification to the text above the table that we are using the qualifying stage seedings for the qualifiers. AmethystZhou (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where it says that "Seeded players are those who take a fixed position in the draw based on their ranking"? Seems to me that a group of players, seeded in a certain range can still be drawn randomly into a certain range of places (as here) and still be regarded as seeds. After all that happened in the qualifying rounds. Nigej (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the qualifiers were seeded for the main draw, then the draw bracket would have been as shown here - https://www.printyourbrackets.com/32seeded.html - for example Ding would have been seeded 17th and played Tom Ford etc.
Because this isn't how the UKC draw is done, i.e. there is no re-seeding ahead of the main draw, then the numbers shown in brackets beside the qualifiers are irrelevant. As AmethystZhou says, some readers may find them "interesting"; other like myself will find it misleading, and it's inconsistent with the presentation of the Wiki page for every Snooker World Championship (and UK Championships from when it used to be 32-bracket main draw before they changed format to 128). Rio309w (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on - we've never previously listed qualifiers seedings once they get to the main draw. Why do it here? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another question is, why don't we list qualifiers seedings elsewhere? The seeding of a qualifier getting to a final or semi-final is more interesting/noteworthy than a top 16 player. MisterRerack (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that you're still taking a very restrictive use of the term "seeding". Surely they can still be seedings even if the system doesn't use a formal 1v32 16v17 system (or whatever). Fundamentally seeding is simply a way of ordering the players/teams, 1,2,3 4, etc, the specifics of the draw is something else, depending on the event, sport etc. We saw that last night with the UEFA Euro 2024#Final draw. The teams were seeded and those seedings used to allocate them to a "pot" from which they were drawn randomly into a particular group. Nigej (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically we should just copy from the sources what the draw is. If they don't mention what the qualification seeding was for the main draw (like they usually don't), then we shouldn't either. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Lee, best way to resolve is by copying whatever the official source (presumably WST) says in terms of seeds in the main draw.
(In response to Nigej... The difference with a group stage draw such as Euro24 is it only uses 'partial' seeding, i.e. teams are placed into pots based on ranking but come the draw all teams within a pot are treated randomly. It doesn't use full seeding - France weren't seeded first, England second, Belgium third etc, as that had no relevance to the draw. Whereas in a flat knockout draw such as the snooker UKC, the top X individuals are each given a specific, unique seeding as this explicitly determines their position in the draw). Rio309w (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think we shouldn't list these seeds as the event is re-seeded at the last 32 without the qualifiers listed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that's true. Someone above said "there is no re-seeding ahead of the main draw" and surely that's true, its just that the 16 qualifiers are allocated places randomly (i.e. they're put into a "pot" in football-speak), a bit like the 9 to 16 seeds in the Masters. Ding was 17th seed for the UK and he was still the 17th seed when he played the final. Whether we include it, is another matter. One could argue that we don't need any seedings added after the first round since the whole draw is done by then, why keep saying that Ronnie is the 3rd seed? Nigej (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The event is not "re-seeded" at the last 32, that is Round 5 of the entire event, and the Top 16 are seeded in their positions. You wouldn't say Round 3 is "re-seeded" for players ranked #17-#48, would you?
Each season/year all players can get into the Top 16 and "qualify" (by their ranking) of being seeded into Round 5 (last 32), like how players can become ranked #17-48 and "qualify" to be seeded into Round 3 (last 80), or become ranked #49-80 and "qualify" to be seeded into Round 2 (last 112), or if ranked #81-#112 earn the right to play one of the 16 amateurs in Round 1.
There is no instance of players being "re-seeded". Ding was seeded #17 for the event from the start, and was still the #17 seed for Round 5 (last 32) when BBC coverage began. We should either keep all the seedings or have none at all. MisterRerack (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two draws took place. One at the start of qualifying (for which #17-#112 in world rankings were seeded thus placed in fixed positions). Then a new draw for the main event, where the top 16 were seeded thus placed in fixed position with a number after their names, and 16 qualifiers were unseeded thus drawn at random. This is always been how main draws in snooker WC, Wimbledon etc have been visually presented to my knowledge. I'm not sure why we've proposed to deviate here. If we're in doubt and can't resolve it, best idea as Lee suggested would be look at what WST, BBC etc do? Rio309w (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I look at what WST do i find [7] and [8] which don't include seedings at all. And the BBC don't either [9]. Perhaps we should look at snooker.org: [10]. Nigej (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was from snooker.org that we got the numbers in the first place.  Alan  (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
snooker.org shows numbers against every single player for every single event (except unranked amateurs), hence don't believe they're intended to denote seedings. I've enquired with WST to resolve our debate, will post the reply here if received. Rio309w (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the fact the Gary Wilson is 1, Brecel 2 and Ronnie 3 for the Scottish event [11] shows that they ARE intended to denote seedings. Nigej (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nigej is right. They are definitely seedings. You are unlikely to get a response from WST. I have emailed them a couple of times with no reply. But you could ask Hermund Årdalen at snooker.org. His email address is [email protected].  Alan  (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I will message him. It looks like snooker.org uses a hybrid. You're right that Wilson [1] for the Scottish shows his seeding, not his world ranking. But in the UKC Qualifiers, for example, snooker.org shows numbers against players #113-#128. Which, as per MrRerack's comment weeks ago, everyone here agrees aren't seeded players! Rio309w (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not "everyone"! I don't agree. Players can be seeded and still be drawn randomly within a part of the draw. The argument that seeded players go into a fixed place in the draw seems a flawed argument to me. Nigej (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My defintion of seeding for a knockout draw is...
Seeding defines which players go into pre-determined slots in the draw. It thus ensures the draw keeps the highest-ranked players apart in a structured way. This is how it's used in snooker WC draw, bowls WC draw, tennis draws etc... Until this discussion I thought it was globally accepted and non-contentious!
Can anyone offer a meaningful alternative definition of the purpose of seeding? I appreciate some contributors have disagreed with my view. But if it's wrong, then what *is* the purpose of seeding? I don't recall seeing any meaningful alternative definitions thus far. Rio309w (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Seed (sports). I'd agree that "Seeding defines which players go into pre-determined slots in the draw." Where we seem to disagree is that you seem to want a system in which the nth seed goes into a specific slot. Personally I would still regard them as seeds/seedings, even if they were grouped as equals in some way (like the "pots" used in football) and even if the "pre-determined slots" were a group of slots with places being allocated in some random manner within those groups. OK we can have a very rigid system, eg 1v32 17v16, etc, but we can also have a much looser system and that's still "seeding" IMO, since the system is "intended so that the best do not meet until later in the competition". Nigej (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree either. Hermund Årdalen at snooker.org doesn't use a "hybrid" as such. I think he seeds all players except amatuers which he indicates with (a).  Alan  (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that the UK Championship places the top 16 in pre-defined slots, and draw them randomly against the 16 qualifiers. The qualifier rounds have a traditional seeding system to place the players from 17th to 112nd. The bottom 32 are unseeded, and drawn randomly into the first round qualifying.
The question seem to be, if Ding Junhui is the "17th seed" in qualifying, is he still "17th seed" in the main draw? IMO it's pedantic to argue about the exact definition of the word "seeding". With some explanation in the text, it should be clear to the reader that the numbers in the bracket are based on the players' rankings, exactly like the rigid seeding system, the only difference is the random draw of the top 16 vs qualifiers. AmethystZhou (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My only disagreement here is with "The bottom 32 are unseeded, and drawn randomly into the first round qualifying." Are you saying that because they are drawn randomly into the first round qualifying then they are unseeded? Why can't they be drawn randomly into the first round qualifying and be seeded too (like they seem to be in snooker.org) Clearly it makes absolutely no practical difference, the draw is the same in either case. Nigej (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying the same thing as you. The bottom 32 are not "seeded" in the way a traditional rigid seeding system works. But we (like snooker.org) can assign numbers to them based on their rankings, sure we can argue if this is still technically "seeding", but like you said it makes no practical difference, and it's still valid and interesting information for the reader. AmethystZhou (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that it makes no practical difference. I think the way it has been done, both by snooker.org and ourselves, is correct. As AmethystZhou has pointed out, we used the same system in previous years with no problem. If you look at the 2022 UK Championship, Jimmy White has the seed number 89 in both the qualifying draw and the main draw.  Alan  (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted Hermund at snooker.org as suggested, his reply says: "We do put numbers between every player, even when they’re not seeded... I have recently started to consider having a visual differentiation between those that are seeded and those that are just informational. Perhaps putting the seed numbers in bold." Rio309w (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's clear enough. So all of the numbers in the article are correct, and the explanatory text is OK but might need a bit of "tweaking".  Alan  (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the text would need to explain that the numbers shown don't reflect seedings... Which would still leave the question of how to identify the seeded players. Alternatively we could just not show numbers for unseeded players, as per the traditional presentation style, which would solve the issue! Rio309w (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Unsuccessful. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:2023 UK Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: AmethystZhou (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 17:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Benny for reviewing this! I've been really busy with work the last few days, but I should get around to addressing these next week. AmethystZhou (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on and nominating the article. I'm happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Sources

Spot checks

Summary

Main draw

Qualifying draw

Century breaks

Notes

Lead

Status query

BennyOnTheLoose, AmethystZhou, where does this review stand? This page hasn't been edited since the end of March, and the article hasn't been, either. With no action at all for over a month, perhaps the review should be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As AmethystZhou hasn't edited for over 20 days, and there are outstanding points to be addressed, I'm failing this. Happy to pick up a review if and when it is re-nominated. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.