Talk:World Snooker Championship

Modern Era/WPBSA

I've removed the line "In 1969 the WPBSA took over regulation of the professional game from the BACC and staged a knockout tournament" as it is not supported by The Times source stated. The Billiard Player magazine for August 1968 says "the World Professional Snooker championship has reverted to a knock-out basis for next season's competition. For the first time since 1952, it will be organised and administered solely by the Billiards Association. ("Tough first round for Pulman," page 5, author not stated.) The September 1969 issue says "The BA &CC and Professional Billiard Players Association have reached agreement regarding procedure for turning professional and other events governed by the BA CC." ("B.A. & C.C. Official", page 8, author not stated.) The PBSA disaffiliated from the BA&CC from 1 October 1970 (The Billiard Player, October 1970, p. 4, author not stated.) and was renamed the WPBSA on 12 December 1970 ("Black Ball Farce and Cue Ball Wizards" by Clive Everton, p.45). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

From The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker p.7:"While the BA and CC had tried to run the professional game, they failed miserably, and in 1971 the WPBSA took it over completely." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Winners

The world snooker championship dates back to 1927, so why are the first 41 years of winners and finalists excluded from the table? Starting at 1969 because someone (who?) decided that's the start of the 'modern' era seems very arbitrary to me. The tournament reverting back to a knockout format in 1969 was hardly momentous when the inaugural 1927 championship also used that format, as did most subsequent editions. As another commenter above noted, the 1977 move to the Crucible might be a more appropriate cut-off point, but still arbitrary. It would be akin only counting Open Era Wimbledon winners. A change in format, prominence or status does not mean the event's earlier history should be ignored. Otherwise rename the article World Snooker Championship since 1969. JMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.244.89 (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The article does cover the whole of history of the event, even if the table doesn't. The modern era is used by many if not all modern sources. Perhaps you'd prefer list of World Snooker Championship winners? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The only source given here for a modern era is a passing mention in a Telegraph article, which probably just copied wikipedia anyway. In any case, the article is about the world championship, not the modern era of the world championship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.132.139 (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. The "modern era" has historically been used for recentism, to say that Joe and Fred Davis' records aren't worth counting. They should definitely be included. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Personally I'd go for Crucible Era which seems to me to much more frequently talked about, and 100% clearly defined (see earlier discussion from 2016). I agree though that we'll hear much today about Ronnie equalling Hendry's record, which is not the record at all. Nigej (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I've heard both 69 and 77 used as dates. It's not too bad using "Hendry and O'Sullivan have won the most world titles in the games Crucible/modern era if that's what the source is, but obviously we should be thorough and cover all tournaments. I've found it a little subjective, as modern era is often used from 69 when someone doesn't discount Reardon. This article for sure should count Joe, Fred, Walter ect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure that's right, it was originally done to get Reardon to the top of the list. I just don't see the 1969 to 1976 "era" as being that clearly defined. Some season-long events like the old days, Two "Eddie Charlton" organised in Australia, 1976 played at two venues. Really it's only 1973 and 1974 that were at all similar to the later Crucible tournaments. To me, its either all from 1927 or Crucible era. This "modern era" idea doesn't work for me. Nigej (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Crucible era is at least something definitive whereas a term like modern era is up for debate. ie It's debatable whether an eight-man untelevised event at Victoria Halls with a 73 frame final (including dead frames) can be considered the same era as the 2022 incarnation. Personally I would prefer to include the championship's entire history as it avoids arguments about eras and cut off points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.244.64 (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Oldest Champion

Ronnie O’Sullivan is now the oldest champion at 46 years 148 days 78.145.191.185 (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Table for just the modern era?

Hi, Can we have a table with the results for just the modern era (from 1969 I think was how this Wikipedia article used to have it)? All news outlets and publications that I have seen talk about the record being seven world titles, shared by Ronnie O'Sullivan and Stephen Hendry.

I don't really see a problem with having one table for all players, and one for just the modern era. BrightOrion (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

i think many/most sources talk about the crucible era rather thsn the modern era. Given that the article covers all world championships I think we should stick to the current table. Bizarrely many people believe that 7 is the record and we can hopefully educate them that that is nonsense. Nigej (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Addition of "Chinese champion" tags in table

† New Champion

† Chinese Champion

† New Chinese Champion

An IP editor has attempted to add "Chinese Champion" and "New Chinese Champion" tags to the table in the #New champions and Chinese emergence (2023–) section (as well as a change of the title from "New generation breaks through" to "New champions and Chinese emergence". I'm not so much against the change of title (although the section itself doesn't mention "Chinese emergence") but I'm very much against the new tags. To me these are just gimmicks. Why have "Chinese Champion" and "New Chinese Champion" tags but not "Belgian Champion" and "New Belgian Champion"? None of the tables in the other sections stress nationality so I don't see any reason for it to be stressed here. Nigej (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nigej: I completely agree with you regarding the unnecessary stressing of nationality.
~2026-28456-12 does not seem to want to discuss the issue but continues to edit war with you.  Alan  (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Nigej. Too soon to change to "Chinese emergence" IMO. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you know what the word emergence means? ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The "Chinese emergence" at the World Championship didn't start in 2023. Ding Junhui has played at the Crucible every year for the past 20 years. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Obviously it's referring to winners ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski, Rodney Baggins, HurricaneHiggins, Betty Logan, CitroenLover, Andygray110, SMcCandlish, Catb2006, KDayne, Mrloop, and Alavense:
It would be useful to get more opinions on this, so pinging the usual suspects.  Alan  (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

"New generational breaks through" is a better title, in my view. Within that, we can also stress the greater internationalisation of the sport (which is not limited only to China, as there have been notable new players from Eastern Europe too, plus Vafaei from Iran reaching the quarter-finals this year. Four consecutive maiden World Champions is a new record, and three champions in four years from outside the British Isles is also unprecedented. Yes, the rise of Chinese snooker is notable and important (we had 10 players from mainland China at the Crucible in 2025 and 11 in 2026, which should be noted) but a specific tag for Chinese players is unwarranted. Also, it's worth pointing out that the "Chinese emergence" did not begin in 2023, as the title suggests. Ding Junhui won the UK Championship over 20 years ago, when Wu Yize was two years old. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Then why didn't you object to the tag for only 2 new champions if you are objecting to the tag for 2 chiense champions?. Also this page is for the world championship not uk championship, so the emergence of chinese winners in this tournament did begin in recent years. Completely nonesense opinion ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nigej Agreed, focus on nationality feels odd, especially after "only" two Chinese champions. In general, two is not enough to mark a pattern. If the next two champions are Chinese as well, maybe that's something that can be discussed as a new era of bigger Chinese dominance of the sport. For now, it just feels gimmicky and almost like editorializing in the way it tries to tell a story that isn't that well supported by empirical evidence as yet. KDayne (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd argue the prevalence of non-British players at the top end of this event dates back to 2010 with Robertson, then Ding before Brecel, Xintong and Yize. We'll have to workshop some section head names. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Remove all the other tags throughout the page. Nobody objected the tag when there were only 2 new champions, but you object to the tag for 2 chinese champions. So you are just objecting for the sake of it, when you didn't object to it before when there were only 2 of a tag. Are you just a hypocrite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

And they were continuing the edit war too, not just me — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

You say why wasn't it stressed Belgian champion, because there has only been 1. Precedent has been set in the page that 2 of a category will justify a tag, so to keep consistent, I have done the same — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Please wait for consensus.  Alan  (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, will see if others agree to continue doing what has been done before — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for asking my opinion on this. FWIW, I personally dislike ALL the table tags, going right back to the one in the Steve Davis years (1981–1989) section. Is it not clear from looking at the table that the cells containing "Steve Davis" under Winner indicate that Steve Davis was the winner, and those under Runner-up indicate that he was the runner-up? I think our readers might think that we think that they're stupid!! Same with Hendry in Stephen Hendry dominates (1990–1999). It might make sense to highlight the Class of '92 players in The class of '92 (2000–2013) and Mark Selby and the veterans (2014–2022), but the tagging in New champions and Chinese emergence (2023–) seems a bit silly to me. Just a gimmick that complicates the look of the table for no real benefit. I've not had much to do with this article recently so I'm happy to live with the consensus on this. Rodney Baggins .talk. 14:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, we can remove all the tags then ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you Rodney. I'm not even a fan of the section heads. Wikipedia shouldn't be using phrases like "dominate", or suggesting that the 80s were "the Steve Davis years" without attribution as a quote. The tags themselves are very poor Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Lets remove them then ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

When these tables were first added back in 2016 they were simply a list of the winners, see . The idea was taken from the German Wikipedia: de:Snookerweltmeisterschaft which retains a simpler format. Personally I'd prefer to see a simpler form again. However the issue at hand is your edit and we should focus on that in the current discussion. Nigej (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

And my edit is in line with previous edits, so if mine goes, they should all go ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

That is not how consensus works. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It is. If you're saying edits of this nature shouldn't be there, we can remove all of them ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not keen on using tags to emphasise nationality given snooker is an individual sport, not a team sport. And where does it end? Do we start referring to the Scottish "emergence" of the 1990s in the triple crown article? I do think it comes across as gimmicky and the less convoluted the article looks the better. Andygray110 (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

So why haven't you objected to the class of 92 tag? Because it's an individual sport and that is not an individual ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

And you havent objected to the tag of new champions ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see all of thse tags removed, except perhaps for the "Class of 92" tag since they were so dominant in that era.
The section title should, I think, remain as "New generation breaks through (2023–)"  Alan  (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Because that isn't the basis of this discussion. And whataboutery isn't a valid form of debate. Andygray110 (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It is the basis of the discussion, I've made a tag consistent with the rest of the page is tagged, so if you are saying they shouldn't be there, we should remove them all. If you are saying tags of this nature are OK, we leave mine there too ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Your arguments so far have been exceptionally poor. Indeed your only arguments seem to be an "other stuff exists" argument and "if my edit goes all sort of other edits should go too". You need to justify your specific edit. Nigej (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I have, and you havent provided any reasonable reason why it shouldn't exist ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Should add that my initial point included "None of the tables in the other sections stress nationality so I don't see any reason for it to be stressed here." Nigej (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Other tables group people together, as I have done ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

This is all absolutely ridiculous. We don't need tags to show that a specific person has won the event, nor that it's the first time, and especially not that they are Chinese. People can read. Unbelievable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

What's more, are these tables even suitable at all? The prose seems a tad in depth, but classifying a random period of time as "Mark Selby and the veterans" is a very odd section header. I have been putting off re-writing this for some time, but if we did re-write the prose, it wouldn't be suitable to have the tables, we already have an article for the results that we should list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:47, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I suppose it's better than having 1 long period of time. Why not change all wikipedia articles to be one long text then? If we are dividing into different period of times, what is wrong with describing the key aspects of that era and providing visual cues? May as well remove all visuals and have continuous text under your argument, which wouldn't be very aesthetic ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm with you Lee. To be honest, I'd be happy to get involved in a complete rewrite of this article and try at least taking it to GA. I think that's long overdue. As for the tags, I vote we take them all out for now and start from the ground up. Rodney Baggins .talk. 16:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I am happy to help that Rodney, this article has needed work for a while. I think we can all agree, however, that the IPs suggestion of having a part of the table for "Chinese winners" is a non-starter. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

You cannot provide any reason for it though. If you think the other grouped tags should be there, than mine should be there too. If you disagree, then remove them all ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

We are discussing your edits. You can't make demands as to how to handle this. Please don't reinsert your changes, it's very clear they aren't suitable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

In your opinion. You cannot provide any logic or facts for why they shouldn't be there. So unless anyone can provide any actual reason for them not to be there, I will keep adding them back. Stop making demands for me to stop ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

That's not even slightly how this works. Stop WP:BLUDGEONING your point. You've broken the WP:3RR, and further reversions of this will be considered vandalism. You don't get to make your own claims of what consensus is. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

You don't get to claim what a consensus is either. The facts are that nobody has provided any relevant information for why this should edit should not be made. If you could stop bludgeoning the process yourself by trying to force through you opinion without any basis. Undoing my edits without consensus is vandalism --~2026-28456-12 (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Enough. There is not a single person in this discussion that agrees with your point of view. You can't just ignore the 3-revert rule because you don't feel as though your comments have been addressed. As a single purpose IP account, I've raised this at the edit warring noticeboard. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yet they cannot provide any reason why they disagree with it. Facts don't care about feelings. If they don't like it, but cannot provide any rationale, they will just have to get over it. You are not the arbitrator or what is right and wrong, so your ego will just have to accept it. I can just use a different user or IP to correct any changes made without consensus ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Wow, sockpuppetry as well? You do surprise me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Needs must to stop you from dictating unwarranted changes to pages. One day you will get over it, guess you don't like being told you're not right ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I am late to this discussion, but here is my view: as much as the section headers are perhaps not ideal, the page is extremely long as is, and it makes reading the page significantly easier for the majority of readers (ie not Wikipedians who edit the pages), because it makes each section more topical and focused to something specific. That allows the prose to be better split up, rather than just endless paragraphs of text, with little to no delineation between them, which is far harder to read than if you just have section headers separating the topics.

It is also not necessarily a bad thing that each relevant period of history in regards of the World Championship be categorised using appropriate headers: while people can read the tables, its not entirely wrong for the headers subdividing each section of notability to point out that the period of time between 1980 and 1990 was largely dominated by Steve Davis, and the same for 1990-1998 by Hendry.

I think sometimes people make arguments that don't make sense to an average reader: to a Wikipedian (being an editor) that strives to stay close to the policies and guidelines, these headers do not make sense, however these pages aren't written with a target audience of editors in mind, they're written for the casual reader who will just use the pages as a source for information. Therefore, I think the headings should stay, but perhaps be more description. I do think that the period from 2014-2022 is relevant to point out that Mark Selby entered his period of domination in the sport (having the longest streak as World Number One in the process of winning 3 world titles), alongside various old hands who came back to the fore again though.

Anyway, to stay focused on the anonymous IP editors' edits: I don't think there's a need for facetiousness, rudeness, hostility or edit warring and the change which was made by them is not particularly relevant. While pundits and commentators do regularly talk about the fact that China is now showing the fruits of its labours of the last 20 years (starting from Ding Junhui), we are not yet at a stage where we should talk about China's dominance of the World Championship. However, should China have a third world champion in a row (whether its Zhao or Wu winning again, or another first time World Champion from China), then it would be prudent to think about re-titling the heading at that point. --CitroenLover (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

That would be a good point, if it was consistent with how the page had been previously built. Everyone was happy with 2 winners forming a category before, so we should continue with that format. They are just not happy because someone outside their gang has made an edit, so they want it removing ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that keeping the last four World Championships in one section is more suitable at the moment, because we do not yet know who the winner is of the 2027 or 2028 editions. It's probably better to wait until at least the next edition before updating this section, when we will know if the streak of first-time world champions is continuing, a veteran returns to the top step, or if China has a third world champion in a row. But right now, making this edit does not really add anything to the page and should be noted in the prose of the section for now. -- CitroenLover (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

You could say that for anything though. If there was a 3rd, you could say let's wait for 4. Nobody objecting to have 2 in a category before, so why should this be an issue now. They are happy to categorise 'Class of 92' and 'veterans' but not Chinese. Nationality is more significant than age or year of turning professional. If people don't like it, they just need to get over it, as it's how the page has been built for years ~2026-28456-12 (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I think it is of note that the last four years have seen a broadening in international representation among world champions, but Luca Brecel is a part of that story too, so focusing on China omits the wider context of internationalization. As yet, we don't know how this new era is going to play out: are we going to see more winners from other countries, one of the last four winners go on and dominate (as Selby did), another era of 3–4 players dominating or a handful of Chinese players dominate the next decade or so? Aside from the soft editorializing that the other tags possibly introduce, they all try to achieve the same thing: define an era, and they are broadly correct. I think there is a valid discussion to be had about some of the tags (and I would be happy to participate in that) but it's clear what they are trying to do. Back-to-back wins do not define an era: if the Chinese dominate the next decade, then the labeling the IP editor is attempting to install would be more meritorious, but there are multiple stories going on here: not so much Chinese emergence, but Chinese breakthrough; but also the ongoing internationalization of the game at the top level, and the fact that we've had four consecutive new champions when we only had five in the first two decades of the 21st century. It is clear it is the dawn of a new era in snooker, but it's anybody's guess what that new era will turn out to be. Betty Logan (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
• Generally agreed with CitroenLover, Betty Logan, Lee Vilenski, and Nigej. I won't re-address the anon/sock's rants or bad ideas. I do agree that the page could use an overhaul, that sectional (and often sub-sectional) splitting of long articles is highly desirable, and that some of the specific headings used so far are poor (seem opinional or otherwise PoV), though the general eras seem fine to me. I don't think this "tags" stuff is needed at all, but at very least eliminate anything nationalist or otherwise PoV pushing. Nationalism is poison, on Wikipedia as everywhere.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2026

Needs reverting to previous edit ~2026-29565-26 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: You can not bludgeon your edit in. —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Rewrite

Hi, now that is all sorted, I'd like to work on this and get it up to GA like the other year articles. It's a big task, could do with a few people looking at it, if anyone has any time to look into this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'll definitely want to be involved. Maybe the first stage would be to come up with a list of concerns to tackle. Meanwhile, I could go through the article and do a general cleanup, copyediting, etc. Rodney Baggins .talk. 07:48, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Grand. I think that's a good start. I looked at just the lede last night and it was pretty bad. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of a need for a format change and making the article a bit less modern day centric.

I'm in the process of filling out the lede a bit. We should cover that it's been run by different organisations, that it's had different formats, who's won it, why it's prestigious etc. For the body, here's my thoughts:

We should start with an overview section. What is the world championship, a breif bit about the history of the championship as a whole, then specifically about the modern era, about the Crucible (and other venues as well).

We could do the next two in either order, but now we've clarified what the event is, we can go into the history. As we have that overview, we don't need to go into the weeds about the specifics of how the event moved locations and the format, we can just mention it. That could condense this section quite considerably. I do think the sections should be by decade rather than a period of time that we made up, even if it is more thematic.

Then format. We can and should go more into the weeds as to how the event was played in the past, and how it is different now, getting into the double/single table setup if we can source it. Worth remembering that even since modern era the event has changed, with frame counts changing, the set changes etc.

Then the sections on television and winners etc. There's probably more we can add, but I think this is a better way to handle it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. I can take a look at this later. I hope other editors will want to join in too... By the way, I totally and utterly agree with your suggestion of: I do think the sections should be by decade rather than a period of time that we made up, even if it is more thematic. Rodney Baggins .talk. 12:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Clive Everton's The Embassy Book Of World Snooker is on archive.org and will be useful up to 1993. Also there is The Hamlyn encyclopedia of snooker (1987) by Ian Morrison. Everton's Black Farce and Cue Ball Wizards (2012) and David Hendon's Pots of Gold (2025) are the other sources that spring to my mind. Lots of sources are wrong about the chronology of the BA&CC/WPBSA split from what I've seen in primary sources - see the History section in World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association for what I believe is the right info. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)