Talk:Maximum break

Standardised reference names

For information: I have renamed all of the citations in the main table to try to standardise them. Most of them are not re-used but it makes sense to have them named anyway. The ones that are re-used makes it easy to find cross-references. For instance, all of the citations in the "Match-winning maximum breaks" section are now re-used from the main table, as are many in the article's prose. Some entries (15 as of 29 March) still need suitable citations. For these I have used <ref name="CT_Archive_Max" /> as a default, which points to this archive. These 15 entries are numbers: 3, 15, 21, 24, 27, 28, 33, 35, 36, 45, 57, 64, 65, 66, and 69. If anyone can find suitable citations for any of these, please put them in place of the default. All of the names use the form <ref name="Max ###"> except where two entries use the same citation, in which case I have used <ref name="Max ### & ###">.  Alan  (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

...also note that there is an archived citation at the top of the main table called "WPBSA_Official_List", which points to this list. The WPBSA keep this list pretty-much up-to-date and so the archived version will become out-of-date and will need to be re-archived from time to time. It was last archived on 27 March and is therefore up-to-date for now.  Alan  (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 16 April.  Alan  (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

...also, please do not be tempted to use the brilliant scripts Reference Renamer or Reference Organizer, both of which will want to remove all of the names which have not yet been re-used.  Alan  (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 7 February.  Alan  (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Of the 15 entries with missing citations listed above, I have found six and added them to the main table. They are 24, 57, 64, 65, 66 and 69.
So the remaining nine still needing citations are 3, 15, 21, 27, 28, 33, 35, 36 and 45. Please help if you can.  Alan  (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: Since you are really good at finding old newspaper articles (and I'm not), could you please have a look for citations for these nine 147s. They are:

• Max 003: Kirk Stevens v Jimmy White on 28 January 1984.
• Max 015: Peter Ebdon v Ken Doherty on 14 November 1992.
• Max 021: James Wattana v Pang Weiguo on 18 September 1997.
• Max 027: Stuart Bingham v Barry Hawkins on 4 February 1999.
• Max 028: Nick Dyson v Adrian Gunnell on 22 March 1999.
• Max 033: Karl Burrows v Adrian Rosa on 4 November 1999.
• Max 035: John Higgins v Dennis Taylor on 21 January 2000.
• Max 036: John Higgins v Jimmy White on 24 March 2000.
• Max 045: Tony Drago v Stuart Bingham on 28 October 2002.

 Alan  (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

It's interesting that some sources contradict the numbering. Janice Hale in The Daily Telegraph referred to #3 as the fourth; Everton's article on #15 refers to it at the 17th. I guess Spencer's unofficial is included in both those counts. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Most done, AlH42, but I couldn't find an online newspaper source for Nick Dyson v Adrian Gunnell. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Wow! Well done Benny. If it's just the one, that's fine. I definitely asked the right person. Thank you.  Alan  (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  @BennyOnTheLoose: I just found and added a Eurosport reference for "Max 028", so that's all of them now!  Alan  (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Note: Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 14 April.  Alan  (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the WPBSA has got its list up-to-date to include both of Page's 147s, but the WST has only included one of them in its list.
 Alan  (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

WPBSA archive updated on 17 April (WST is not up-to-date yet).  Alan  (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 25 April.  Alan  (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 29 September.  Alan  (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Note: Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 2 October.  Alan  (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Note: Both WPBSA and WST archives updated. WPBSA on 8 October and WST on 10 October.  Alan  (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Note: Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 9 November.  Alan  (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 14 December.  Alan  (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 10 January 2026.  Alan  (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 29 January 2026.  Alan  (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 23 March 2026.  Alan  (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 13 April 2026.  Alan  (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 13 June 2026.  Alan  (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 8 July 2026.  Alan  (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: Both WPBSA and WST archives updated on 22 July 2026.  Alan  (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Collapsing parts of the main table

I have been looking at ways to make the main table smaller and more user-friendly (although perhaps less editor-friendly). The idea is to make an extra row above each season, with a "hide/show" button in it so that the user can selectively collapse/expand each season. I have so far been unsuccessful. A search found this which is not very helpful. We also need to retain the sortable functionality. I have read through the collapse, collapse top, and collapse bottom documentation but have not got very far. If anyone has more information on how this might be achieved, please let me know.  Alan  (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Edit: Here's what I would think it might look like, for the first 15 entries, if I could get it to work:

Official maximum breaks achieved in professional competition

No.	Date	Season	Player	Age	Opponent	Event
1981–1982 season (1) hide/show button
001	11 January 1982	81–82	Steve Davis	24 years, 142 days	John Spencer	Classic
1982–1983 season (1) hide/show button
002	23 April 1983	82–83	Cliff Thorburn	35 years, 97 days	Terry Griffiths	World Championship
1983–1984 season (1) hide/show button
003	28 January 1984	83–84	Kirk Stevens	25 years, 164 days	Jimmy White	Masters (L)
1987–1988 season (2) hide/show button
004	17 November 1987	87–88	Willie Thorne	33 years, 258 days	Tommy Murphy	UK Championship
005	20 February 1988	87–88 (2)	Tony Meo	28 years, 139 days	Stephen Hendry	Matchroom League (L)
1988–1989 season (3) hide/show button
006	24 September 1988	88–89	Alain Robidoux	28 years, 61 days	Jim Meadowcroft	European Open (Q)
007	18 February 1989	88–89 (2)	John Rea	37 years, 75 days	Ian Black	Scottish Pro. Championship
008	8 March 1989	88–89 (3)	Cliff Thorburn (2nd)	41 years, 51 days	Jimmy White	Matchroom League
1990–1991 season (1) hide/show button
009	16 January 1991	90–91	James Wattana	20 years, 364 days	Paul Dawkins	World Masters
1991–1992 season (5) hide/show button
010	5 June 1991	91–92	Peter Ebdon	20 years, 282 days	Wayne Martin	Strachan Open (Q)
011	25 February 1992	91–92 (2)	James Wattana (2nd)	22 years, 39 days	Tony Drago	British Open
012	22 April 1992	91–92 (3)	Jimmy White	29 years, 356 days	Tony Drago	World Championship
013	9 May 1992	91–92 (4)	John Parrott	27 years, 364 days	Tony Meo	Matchroom League
014	24 May 1992	91–92 (5)	Stephen Hendry	23 years, 132 days	Willie Thorne	Matchroom League
1992–1993 season (1) hide/show button
015	14 November 1992	92–93	Peter Ebdon (2nd)	22 years, 79 days	Ken Doherty	UK Championship (L)

 Alan  (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to making the entire table collapsible, but I think making it internally collapsible would compromise too much functionality. To obtain the desired effect you would need to nest tables, which would then make it impossible to sort the table by player, for example. Betty Logan (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

A lot of the issues with collapsible tables is that they aren't all that accessible. It tends to make the page size larger, makes user input higher and tends to be difficult for mobile and scrubbers. I'm not against a "list of maximum breaks" at some stage, but I don't think that time is now. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the input. Pretty much as I thought, but it was worth having a go.  Alan  (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

...I have asked the question about the functionality of collapsing parts of table in both this help talk page and this template talk page but neither seems to get much traffic. Does anyone know of a beter place to post the question, where it might get a reply?  Alan  (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

...and I have created a feature request at: ⚓ T406703 Collapsing part of a Wikitable  Alan  (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

That was a complete waste of time and effort, so I have now given up.  Alan  (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

See this discussion regarding the TOC.  Alan  (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

TLDR — Alan: Can you implement this technical feature, please; Technical help: Program it yourself. Betty Logan (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Assuming that "TLDR" stands for "too long, didn't read". I don't understand what you want me to implement.  Alan  (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

It's a joke, Alan. Betty Logan (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Didn't get it, but I'm well known for not having a sense of humour. I want to put a note near the new TOC, about the odd results it gives if the table is sorted by player etc., but I can't decide on the wording. Nor can I decide whether to put a note underneath the TOC, or to put in a footnote (efn) next to it. I used to be indecisive but now I'm not so sure. Any input from you (or anyone else) would be welcome.  Alan  (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Just added a note for the TOC. Feel free to change the wording.  Alan  (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

List of 146 breaks

I don't know when this section was added or why but it shouldn't be here. This is an article about the maximum possible breaks in snooker, and a 146 break is obviously not that. It's trivia and just pads out an already lengthy article. Also the only reference provided seems to be a discussion forum, which is not a reliable source. Where has the 146 break as a distinct thing been discussed in secondary reliable sources? Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree, it just bloats the article. In fact, other tables in the article—such as the list of players who have made multiple maximums—have been scaled back to cut down the size of the article, so the list 146 breaks is counter-productive IMO. I think it's interesting that a 147 has been made on more occasions, but it's not a notable metric so the list should be dropped. Betty Logan (talk) 06:52, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Similarly, I hadn't realised there was a table for 146 breaks until this recent 'interest' in this page due to the 153 break.

I don't think it should be included, as it's irrelevant to the page's primary objective...maximum breaks!

Near misses shouldn't be in there - although, I know the editor put in a lot of work to compile the stats for the 146 table!

But if 146 breaks can be included, then why not 145s, 144s etc.

Keep it to maximums, plus the prose mentioning the two occasions when 147 has been exceeded. Woodlandscaley (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I added this table a month ago. Every entry has a valid reference. Delete it if you like, I'm past caring.  Alan  (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the list of 146 breaks is not needed in this article. It certainly shouldn't be a subsection of the List of official maximum breaks. Rodney Baggins .talk. 16:09, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Not a fan. Seems like trivia. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:14, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

So go ahead and delete it. I don't care one way or the other.  Alan  (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I have removed it per the consensus here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

List of players with five or more maximums

It is NOT clear whether "Breaks exceeding 147" are counted in the tally. If not, I think it should be noted by the player's tally somehow. But a sencence should be there explaining this.Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The very first bit of the article says what a maximum break is, and this section says "Below is a list of players who have made five or more maximum breaks". I don't see the point in repeating what a maximum break is. There's the same issue for the main list of maximum breaks. Nigej (talk) Nigej (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for Setenzatsu. It's true the article clearly defines what a maximum is under normal circumstances, but later in the article we also outline a theoretical scenario where breaks higher than a 147 can be made. For people who do not follow snooker it may not be clear that a break higher than 147 can only be considered a maximum if it is a 155, and it may not be clear that a 155 has never occurred in official competition. Maybe we can make it explicit in the lead that all the officially ratified maximums that are recorded here are 147 breaks? Betty Logan (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Added sentence to lede.  Alan  (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2026 (UTC)