Talk:Players Tour Championship 2012/2013
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
APTC qualification and colour key
[edit]There seems to be a dispute going on about who has exactly qualified and the key used for the APTC chart:
- Firstly, it is pointless to fill in the whole chart with colour coding. The point of it is to differentiate between qualifiers by winning an event and players who qualify via the Order of Merit standings, so obviously it should be restricted to Bingham and Lee.
- Secondly, according to the APTC entry pack, the winner of each APTC event and the top 4 on the order of merit will qualify for entry into the Players Tour Championship Grand Final ... in the event of a player from the top 4 of the APTC Order of Merit qualifying by winning an APTC event the next player on the order of merit will qualify. Now, the way this reads is that after the event winners, another four players will qualify via by the order of merit standings. It is not explicitly clear about what happens if a player wins more than one event i.e. will there be five merit qualifiers since Stuart Bingham won two events? It is a reasonable assumption that Cao Yupeng being fifth in the rankings will qualify, but by the same token World Snooker could award the spare place to a player on the main PTC Order of Merit. Until it is confirmed that Yupeng receives the spare place we can't just assume it. It is also unclear who will qualify if Lee is not eligible to play at the time too. I think it it might be useful for a readers to know who the seventh man and eight men are given the circumstances, so I suggest adding them in italics:
| Rank | Player | Total Points | Events Played |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Stuart Bingham
|
20,600 | 3 |
| 2 | Stephen Lee
|
15,000 | 2 |
| 3 |  Ding Junhui
|
7,100 | 3 |
| 4 | Li Hang
|
5,400 | 3 |
| 5 | Robert Milkins
|
5,000 | 3 |
| 6 | Tom Ford
|
4,500 | 3 |
| 7 | Cao Yupeng
|
4,200 | 3 |
| 8 | Xiao Guodong
|
3,700 | 3 |
(Top 8 players out of 113. The top 6 are confirmed to have qualified for the PTC Finals. Yupeng and Guodong may qualify dependent on the outcome of Stephen Lee's suspension, and how the qualifier spot allocated to the winner of the third APTC event is re-allocated due to Stuart Bingham having already qualified by winning the first event.)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty Logan (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 November 2012
- Don't think we should offer information based on speculation. Everything verifiable is in the article. By the same toke, we could assume that Ford finished in the top 5 of the European Order of Merit and than the 9th player of the AOOM qualifies instead of Ford. Armbrust The Homonculus 22:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- So the basis of your argument is that there are too many permutations between who qualifies from the PTC and those who qualify from the APTC. I guess I can see your point in limiting it strictly to players who are confirmed as having qualified, although perhaps we can make that a bit clearer in the article, otherwise editors will keep adding their own guesswork. Betty Logan (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Added a hidden note to the top of the Asian OOM section]. What do you think. Armbrust The Homonculus 22:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think that will be ok. If the IP persists direct him to WP:CRYSTAL. Betty Logan (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, will do. Armbrust The Homonculus 23:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think that will be ok. If the IP persists direct him to WP:CRYSTAL. Betty Logan (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Added a hidden note to the top of the Asian OOM section]. What do you think. Armbrust The Homonculus 22:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- So the basis of your argument is that there are too many permutations between who qualifies from the PTC and those who qualify from the APTC. I guess I can see your point in limiting it strictly to players who are confirmed as having qualified, although perhaps we can make that a bit clearer in the article, otherwise editors will keep adding their own guesswork. Betty Logan (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)