Talk:Carom billiards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carom billiards (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

An entry from Carom billiards appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on January 8, 2007.

This article or list is a nominee for the Version 0.7 release of Wikipedia. See the nominations page for more details.

This article is part of WikiProject Cue sports, a project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of pool, carom billiards and other cue sports. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 Game ending 2 Please review: Consensus and consistency needed on spelling to prevent ambiguity & confusion 3 WikiProject Cue sports 4 Cite needed?! 5 Good article 6 Iwan Simonis date error? 7 The Last Edition

[edit] Game ending

How does the game of three cushion billiards end? Is it until one player concedes with the highest scoring player as the winner? --81.103.58.81 14:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Three cushion billiards is played with 2 people. Various systems are possible but in general competition each player has to make an number of good shots which is detemined by the level of the player (results of previous year). Another possibilty is players are categorised in several groups (depending on result of previous year/tournament) and everyone in that group has to make the same ammount of good shots. The games is over when 1 player of both players have reached their requered score and both players did have the same amount of turns. When both players have reached their requered score it is either a draw or both players continue to play for a preset new score (e.g. 110% of original requered score). --[anon]

[edit] Please review: Consensus and consistency needed on spelling to prevent ambiguity & confusion

Especially for nine-ball but also for eight-ball, one-pocket, and even snooker, etc., I firmly think we need to come to, and as editors enforce in article texts, a consensus on spelling conventions and implement it consistently throughout all of the cue sports Wikepedia articles. I advocate (and herein attempt to justify) a system of standardized spellings, based on 1) general grammar rules; 2) basic logic; and 3) disambiguation.

This is a draft submission to the active editor community of billiards-related articles on Wikipedia. It is intended to ultimately end up being something like "[[Wikipedia:[something:]Billiards/Spelling guidelines]]", or part of an official Wikipedia cue sports article-shepherding Project, likely it's first documentation output.

Anyway, please help me think this through. The point is not for me to become world famous™ for having finally codified billiards terms and united the entire English-speaking world in using them (hurrah). I simply want the articles here on pool and related games to be very consistent in application of some new consensus Wikipedia editing standards about spelling/phrasing of easily confusable billards terms that may be ambiguous to many readers in the absence of that standard.

Compare:

1. "While 9-ball is a 9-ball game, the 9-ball is the real target; pocket it in a 9-ball run if you have to, but earlier is better." (Huh?)
2. "While nine-ball is a nine ball game, the 9 ball is the real target; pocket it in a nine ball run if you have to, but earlier is better." (Oh, right!)

That's the super-simple "use case" I make for this proposed nomenclature. If you think that the differentiation didn't cut it please TELL ME, and say how you would improve it.

So, here's the article draft so far (please do not edit it directly! Post on its Discussion page instead; thanks.): User:SMcCandlish/Pool_terms

(PS: This intro text is repeated at the top of it.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I realize that was just an example, but how about this:

• "While 9-ball is a game of nine balls, the #9 ball is the real target; pocket it in a nine-ball run if you have to, but earlier is better."

where the name of the game is italicized, and the "#" symbol (which might be too much) is used when referring to the ball itself. Notice also that a hyphen is added to "nine-ball run", which I believe is the correct way to phrase this (not only in billiards, but in general). Just my thoughts. --ChaChaFut 05:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Replying at the draft spelling convention's talk page so as not to clutter Talk:Carom billiards with off-topic stuff. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Marking this topic resolved since the draft guideline now exists as WP:CUESPELL and has its own talk page for any further discussion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Cue sports

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Cue sports. Any comments, or better yet interested editors to participate? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Marking topic "Resolved" as the project is now live, at WP:CUE, and has its own talk page for any further discussion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cite needed?!

Do we really need a cite for "carambola"? I can't find any other use of this word, so unless someone can come up with a possible alternative it seems pretty obvious to me. Maury 22:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, everything should be cited. It's moot now. I completely rewrote the article and added the etymology of carom(bola/e).--Fuhghettaboutit 14:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, excellent edit Fuh, the article is fantastic. Maury 23:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!--Fuhghettaboutit 05:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article

I enjoyed reading this article. The number of references seemed ample, and there is a good provision of information on the many variants of the game. The information presented about its history is not only informative, but also interesting.--ZincBelief 10:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iwan Simonis date error?

Iwan Simonis is founded 1680 in Belgium afaik. Not sure about this but at least the year 1453 sounds way off.. Where does this info come from?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.77.96.249 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Good catch. I have fixed the entry. The information comes from the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards by Mike Shamos, which states in pertinent part (page 53, entry for cloth):

The firm of Iwan Simonis of Verviers, Belgium, is probably the most famous manufacturer of billiard cloth. The company is appoximately as old as billiards itself, a predecessor having been formed in 1453 (emphasis mine).

--Fuhghettaboutit 02:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Last Edition

What exactly was wrong with the adding of Progressive Billiards in the last edit? It's even sourced to be proved it's reality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.9.126.41 (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not for recently made up stuff that someone finds interesting or entertaining. The source isn't reliable. My favorite pool bar could make up a new game (did, in fact, called Dutch pool, which might be played by various locals and have written rules (Dutch pool does, in fact). Doesn't make it notable at all. It's non-encyclopedic local fun-stuff. When thousands play it around the world, might be a notable cue sport. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)