This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maximum break article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Snooker, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of snooker on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SnookerWikipedia:WikiProject SnookerTemplate:WikiProject SnookerSnooker
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cue sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pool, carom billiards and other cue sports on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cue sportsWikipedia:WikiProject Cue sportsTemplate:WikiProject Cue sportscue sports
Internal pages: Something like: [2][3]). Such pages are not fluff, but can be good places to find recruits for the project, possibly including subject-matter experts, especially if cross-referenced to the project. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cue sports (cf. [4][5][6]).
Create timelines, both textual and graphical. See link for various guidelines and examples. We need an overall one for cue sports generally, and more specific ones as we drill down into more specific topics (timeline of nine-ball, timeline of Willie Mosconi's career, etc.).
Form sections: Exhibition game needs section on cue sports; could later form a new article with "Main article..." xref to it. What other general articles need cue sports sections?
Images: improve articles with images from commons; create pics and add them to commons as GFDL/CC-by/PD.
Add: {{Sport overview}} to main articles of cue games that are real sports; medal table tags where they apply (see Ding Junhui for example).
Insert: Cue sports events (tournament results, etc.) into the "year in sports" categories (e.g. 1965 in sports), using {{subst:Cue sports heading}} if that year doesn't have one yet.
This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.
Standardised reference names
Latest comment: 12 days ago28 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
...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)Reply
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)Reply
@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.
I'm going to stop recording when these archives are updated, since neither the WST or the WPBSA seem to be able to keep these lists up-to-date. The article history can be referred to anyway. I have added a further source from snookerpro.de to this article and to the Snooker article, since this seems to be kept current. Alan (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Collapsing parts of the main table
Latest comment: 10 months ago14 comments3 people in discussion
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)Reply
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
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago8 comments6 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
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.
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)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.