Talk:Glossary of cue sports terms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Omission of terms 2 Title and tone 3 Overhaul 4 Some of the definitions 5 Merge proposal 6 Free ball 7 Please review: Consensus and consistency needed on spelling to prevent ambiguity & confusion 8 New 'In turn' entry in the list  is , now WAS gibberish 9 Merge completed 10 Commonwealth English 11 On the Snap 12 Broken ref citation 13 Latest round 14 Reverse english 14.1 Check side 14.2 Reverse english 14.3 Reverse side 15 2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message 16 Idea 17 Template to make citing the glossary easier 18 Webby sources 19 The page number problem 20 Inning 21 Tickie-tick

[edit] Omission of terms

I had added the terms force-follow, and force draw, which are extremes of the respective english applied to the cue. It is very important not to just cowboy edits to a page...research it firt to see if it is a true term first.[1] [--anon.]

[edit] Title and tone

As with billiards, the title and tone of this article is very US-centric. (In this case, the punctuation I've put into MoS format.) A number of the entries are not so much "terms" as "slang", and often not at all specific to pools and billiards. I suggest we move to a more inclusive title, perhaps "... billiards games terms", "... cue sports terms", or "billiards, snooker and pool terms", or some such variation or permutation. Alai 04:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is a definite U.S. bias. I wrote all the definitions (originally for the article Billiards; forked by a different user), and I am from the U.S. Although as you see I included many commonwealth definitions, many are contained in afternotes in the main definitions, i.e., "also referred to as ____ in the UK". I suppose those should be broken out into their own definitions to remove that bias. The bias shown in not having a lot of commonwealth term definitions can only be fixed by the Wikipedia process—by having someone familiar with them, add them in. Unfortunately, articles such as ths one, requiring specialized knowledge to draft, often take longer to become balanced. I guess the article could be broken into three broad sections, General terminology, U.S. terminology and Commonwealth terminology, but I think that's overcomplcated and unnecessary. I definitely agree that the article name should be changed to be more inclusive and am going to be bold and make the change. --Fuhghettaboutit 12:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I hope I didn't sound too critical, I just wanted to flag up the scoping issue, lest I intrude with snookerisms/non-US-Englishisms where they weren't wanted. I don't think separate sections are required, I'd suggest just cross-referencing, and multiple "headwords". Do you agree on factoring out the slang? Even if these have pool-hall origins (which they might or might not, I don't know) they don't seem best placed in a "glossary of terms". Alai 05:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Factoring out the terms sounds like a good idea to me. Bucketsofg✐ 05:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The terms are not regional, they are incredibly widespread, used all over the U.S. and canada and are stable, i.e., they haven't changed a wit from at least the 1930s. I personally can attest to their widespread usage as I have played all over the country, and for many years. I know their "at least" age as they are the same terms used by new players as well as old timers. Of course my word is not a useful reference (if I had a nickel for every time a user wanted something kept because "they can attest to it"). Let me take a different tack. These terms are sourcable, and widespread enough that they appear in, for instance, Mike Shamos' Encylopedia of Billiards. [2]. Ah. Here we go. Here's an online scanned copy of the glossary from The Illustrated Principles of Pool and Billiards (a different book from the last) containing many of the "slang" terms. [3]. Slang is really not correct. It's a specialized argot.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Fuhghettaboutit on this particular subtopic; these terms are widespread. I'm also happy about the inclusion of UK snooker terms, etc., since they are encountered by US players, and vice versa. I know Americans who say "pot" rather than "sink" or "pocket", and Canadians in particular (I just moved back to the US from Canada) use a mish-mash of US and UK terminology. It's a very useful, broad and cross-cultural (i.e. encycolopedic) list. PS: I think the term being sought is "jargon", much like computer-speak and medical terminology - a vocabulary of terms specific to a field with particular meanings that may operator-overload wider usages or be unique to the context; these terms are neither slang ("street" use of language for subculturally-internal purposes often in counterpart or irony to mainstream use) nor an argot (secret or subcultural language essentially impenetrable to outsiders, by design). (Sorry, I'm a linguist by training...) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I yield! Jargon it should have been (how 'bout "terms of art"?--Fuhghettaboutit 23:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fuhghettaboutit and SMcCandlish on this one. Americanisms are creeping into British English every day, and I play a lot of pool around the country, they are a veritable mish-mash here too. The article loses nothing by reflecting this, but stands to lose a great deal from taking it out. As an aside, and not one that hasn't already been extensively brushed upon in this thread, I don't necessarily agree with the use of jargon as an absolute term for the point in question. Different cultures use terms such as argot, jargon, lingo and indeed patois almost interchangeably, we needn't refer to unconscionably rigid linguistic texts for our definitions. Kris 03:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

To belatedly continue with the languagegeeking: a) Term of art does in fact describe a lot of the entries in this list, where they are generally accepted by the entire cue sports community ("ball-in-hand" is a great example; no one says "ball-where-you-want-it" or other variations). But where they are more colloquial they are definitely jargon. As for slang, see the slang-related comment under the game entry for an illustration of the difference; slang is widespread phenomenon not limited to a particular field of activity. b) There is no compelling reason to be imprecise about these terms, when the have clear and globally defined lingustistic meanings for them. The fact that non-linguistic lay people conflate them "almost interchageably" is of no real relevance. Most people also do the same thing with HIV and AIDS but that doesn't mean that one should aspire to conflate them, and absolutely does not mean that WP articles, or in-depth discussions of the "guts" of WP articles, should either. </geeking> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: I'm not sure that "yankeecentrism" of this article will ever be balanced out until British, etc., editors get more involved. I guess the topic remains open, but I suspect it will remain perpetually open. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul

I like the idea of this glossary, it appeals to me because I am an avid pool player and also love lexicography. I have a lot of experience in proper lexicographical layout and feel this article could be a bit better standardized overall, in more of a dictionary format, but I don't want to get stuck into doing this if it will meet with disapproval. My reservations are that people wouldn't want to see a dictionary-style format in a "glossary", which are on the whole more informal anyway. It would improve the inherent quality of the article but may be inappropriate, what do people think about this? I'm not talking about taking slang out etc. – this terminology is cool and worthy of its place in my opinion. I would just include more thorough cross-referencing, generally tidy up a lot of the entries, and perhaps include derivative terms from the core entry. E.g.:

Choke

Miss a relatively simple shot or play to a lesser standard as a result of pressure.

• Example of use: "He cleared up his balls but then choked on the black."
• Past participle: choked.
• Present participle: choking.
• Noun: choker.

Kris 12:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is overkill. At least doubles the complexity. Stay informal; this isn't wiktionary. My $.02. --GregU 08:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Strenuously agree with GregU. Give different noun, verb, etc., entries when their usages are particular enough as to need explanation (see, e.g., the "snooker" entry). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah this is ancient news now, I was new to Wikipedia when I suggested this, a bit green around the gills and didn't even know about Wiktionary. Not worth the effort, nor any further discussion. Kris 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't meant as personally critical or anything.  :-) Just chiming in on a loose-end topic, in hopes of sewing it up.. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries! No offense taken – I find too much can be read between the lines on these discussion pages, short of being ultra-sensitive with wording (not my forte). If I'd known about the resolved tag maybe I'd have done that myself, but thanks for putting a lid on things. Kris 14:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some of the definitions

Rack

I also use this term when picking up the balls at the counter: "Give me a rack of balls." or sometimes just "Give me a rack." Is that just me?

Call shot

I don't play 8-ball much, but I thought I remembered that "Call pocket" means call just the ball and the pocket, and "Call shot" meant that in addition to that, call how it gets there (banks, caroms, etc.) A silly notion but some people play that way. I'm probably wrong...

--GregU 08:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Call shot" is the official designation for games such as straight pool and eight ball where shots must be called and where the rule is ball and pocket only. You're correct that some amateur bar eight ball players sometimes play that you must call every nuance of every shot in the chaos that passes for rules in such venues, just as some players believe that when you're frozen to a rail you get to move the ball out two inches (haha). What a can of worms we open up if we start giving definitions for all these inconsistent, ridiculous and unsanctioned rules.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I lean toward GregU's interpretation. If the BCA, etc., really called "called pocket" rules "called shot" then the "call shot" entry needs to have 1./2. definitions to disambiguate. In am. league play in the US and Canada, the distinction between "bar rules" and "league rules" is often expressed as "it's a called pocket game, not a called shot game". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well they do indeed call it call shot. See the world standardized rules for, for instance, eight ball. The fact that amateurs have glommed onto the ridiculous "call every nuance of a shot" shouldn't make us change the correct terminology. The only concession that should be made, if any, is possibly to mention that some recreational players misinterpret the phrase to mean something other than what it means. Let me run an analogy by you. Many people, I dare so most, incorrectly believe that Alpha Centauri is the closest star to the Earth. In actuality, Alpha Centauri is a three star system with the closest star being Proxima Centauri. You can certainly mention that many people have this misconception, but we shouldn't concede that the misconception is another meaning.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That logic works for me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

Most of the terms in the snooker list already appear here. Kris 07:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There are about 388 total entries, of which about 69 (18%) are snooker or UK-specific. Only about 5 of the 57 entries in the snooker list don't yet appear in the glossary. Only about 16 (28%) of the snooker list terms are also pool terms with the same definition.

At 85K, the glossary is already quite a bit larger than the recommended article size. Because of this, because 18% of the terms are specific to snooker or UK pool, because there is not that much overlap in the two lists, and because the two worlds are more often separate than together, I think it would be better to keep the snooker terms in a separate list, removing them from the billiards glossary.

This is preferable to the way other large glossaries are split (e.g., A-H, I-R, S-Z). Also makes for a less awkward title, and less awkward definitions where you have to continually specify which world you're talking about in the definitions. Some definitions don't specify, which confuses me as I don't know if it's a pool term I've never encountered or a snooker term. A ==See also== can link the two glossaries.

If there is not concurment on that proposal, then yes the snooker list should definitely be merged in to this glossary. --GregU 05:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hard to argue with such thorough research into the issue! You make a good point, it does get complex when talking about all the different rules out there for different games, as well as different versions of the same games. Perhaps it would be better to separate snooker out, then the whole page needs a bit of tidy to match the format of this glossary. Kris 11:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd merge them. Recommended article length limitations don't logically apply very well to glossaries or other lists, but rather to narrative articles like Great Britain. Too many of the terms overlap for it to be sensible, to me, to maintain separate lists. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free ball

I am unfamiliar with the expression's use in pool (although "free shot" is fairly common) but not with the way it is presently defined in the article, which doesn't even make sense: "In 8-ball this would normally give the opponent the option of ball-in-hand or being allowed to contact a ball other than the balls she/he is playing first." Once choice of group has been made, you can never contact the opponent's object balls without committing a foul. I took a look in Mike Shamos Encyclopedia of Billiards and found only the snooker definition. Can you clarify the definition? Is it UK specific? --Fuhghettaboutit 22:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not totally familiar with US 8-ball, d'you play one shot after a foul but with ball-in-hand like in 9-ball? In that case you wouldn't have the need for the free ball rule because you'd obviously just always move it unless set up already. In UK 8-ball the free ball rule is there because we play two shots after a foul, but ball-in-hand is only an option if you're snookered on all your balls after a foul. The alternative ploy is to play from the snookered position, and use that shot to either hit a ball other than one from your set, or, if tactically worth it, pot one of your opponent's balls (obviously you can only hit the black, not pot it). You would only choose the latter option if you wanted your balls to be situated better in the future, because you lose the first shot in doing so. Normally a player will pick up the cue ball and try to run out with the two shots. Hope this clarifies things for you, I've tweaked it a bit to get rid of the garden path sentence etc., the existing definition doesn't cover all the intricacies because it's seems pedantic, but feel free to rewrite if you can be more laconic (not one of my strong points!). Kris 13:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like it's just a UK variation and with your defining it as UK specific it's fine. Just to clarify, in the US, under official rules, it is ball in hand after all fouls except if the foul is on the break, in which case it is ball in hand from the kitchen. --Fuhghettaboutit 18:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[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 05:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Marking topic "Resolved" because the material in question is now "live" at WP:CUESPELL and has its own talk page for further discussion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New 'In turn' entry in the list  is , now WAS gibberish

The 'In Turn' definition is impenetrable. If anyone has any idea what was intended, please re-write it in plain English. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any particular problems with the entry, other than I'd never heard the term before. What don't you understand? It just says, with a bit of nine-ball jargon admittedly, that "in turn" means although the handicapped player is given a spot ball, he or she cannot pot it via any shot other than a straight pot. I.e., no special shots such as caroms or combinations are allowed on it, because all lower-valued balls must be cleared before it can be potted. I see it as a way of eliminating the extra possibilities for lucky scenarios whereby such shots are set up. Forgive me if I'm missing your point here. Kris 14:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Been playing pool (incl. nine-ball) for 16 years, and I can't make heads or tails of the wording in there. "A stipulation given to weight designated in nine ball." I know what a stipulation is; OK. But what is "to weight designated"? It isn't (for me) parseable as a sentence that conveys a meaning. "In turn means that making a spot ball for a win..." Does this mean a solid (many call the solids "spots"), or a ball that has been given to someone as a "spot" handicap? (*I* know that it means the latter, but many casual readers might not, esp. if they are not regular nine-ball players.) The de facto rewrite you did just above could probably be merged with the original text to make it clearer.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the entry to clear up this matter. I believe the meaning is now clear. I have also added that it is uncommon in the U.S. as I have never heard it used before.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Schweet. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge completed

Most of the entries from List of snooker terms were already present (many in more detail here than there). I have merged all missing terms and removed the merge tag. Since this is far more complete, containing many, many more snooker terms than the snooker glossary does, I dare say the other article is superfluous.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just did the redirect. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commonwealth English

If someone has a problem with the concept of Commonwealth English they should take that up at that article's talk page, not by making factually incorrect edits to this article. If anything we should be using this term a lot more, instead of "UK" or "British", when it is known that a term is broadly used in Commonwealth not just UK English (i.e. by English in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong, etc., etc.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of avoiding an editwar with JackLumber (a review of whose edit history shows that he is trawling WP to remove all references to "Commonwealth English"; a personal bugbear it seems), I'll back down on this because the C.E. article is unsourced, as he pointed out in edit summary.

This leaves us with a major problem: The Glossary is now factually incorrect as to usage distribution in many, many places, and we don't seem to have a short-hand way for rectifying that. What are we supposed to do now? "Chiefly British, Irish, Australian, New Zealandish, South African, Singaporan, Hong Kongian...[insert dozens more]...British Virgin Islander English"? Or "chiefly non-North-American, except for the British Virgin Islands...[insert every other British-dominated Carribean territory]..."? (NB: Just "chiefly non-US" won't cut it; most Canadians, by far, use US not British pool/billiards terminology, for the vast majority of terms). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How about going to the root of the problem and sourcing and expanding Commonwealth English? shouldn't be too hard but I have no time tonight. A quick google book search looks promising--Fuhghettaboutit 04:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Marking this "Resolved" since article intro text now just gets around the problem entirely. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the Snap

On the snap and on the break are not synonymous at all. The first is a very common expression, "wow, he made it on the snap" or "come on baby, on the snap!". "On the break" is just a sentence fragment; never heard is used as an expression at all. See TIEOB entry forsnap, page 217, for sourcing. In fact there's a pool league website named after the expression: http://www.onthesnap.com/--Fuhghettaboutit 13:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Not so sure. Your first example is "just a sentence fragment", and precisely synonymous with "on the break" as commonly used. I would concur that just by itself "On the snap!" is a special interjectory usage. (I would theorize that TCoM actually invented that usage, and that it is in real use today only because of the memetic power of the movie. I actually have heard "Yeah! On the break!" (after the fact) at league matches, but I'll concede that it's rather rare (mostly it'll just be hoots and hollers, frankly. >;-)

Proposal: Fork the definition into two entries, one for O.t.b. almost as-is, and have the O.t.s. one have two senses:

1. By itself (or prefaced by "Do it", etc.), an interjection exhorting the shooter to pocket the money ball, on the break^[1]
2. As a general phrase, same as on the break.

That code's just copy-pastable after removal of the leading :'s. If you're agreeable. All that would be needed beyond that would be a See also xref from O.t.b. to O.t.s. I think all the xrefs currently in the Glossary can continue to point at O.t.b., since none of them are about interjectory usage. Howzat? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not sure "on the break" has any traction as an expression and should probably be removed entirely. On the snap is constantly used. What I meant by sentence fragment is that, whereas on the snap is a saying, the other appears to be just a statement, i.e, "he made the nine ball 'on the break,'" and not a defined phrase. I have never heard it used alone. If someone made the nine on the break and screamed "on the break!" I think most people would know what the person meant but would cock their heads in puzzlement at the unfamiliar expression. By contrast, on the snap, just those three words, has a set meaning every pool bum knowns.

You may be right that The Color of Money popularized the expression, but so what? That's how language works. Whatever its origin, it has: a pool league named after it as noted above; a video using it in context[4], a magazine named after it On the Snap Magazine (see halfway down the page) as well as an ezine [5]; a pool room named after it [6], two billiard supply warehouses named after it [7], [8]; multiple mentions in books on the sport [9] and so on. 15,300 google hits for a targeted search [10], most using it as an expression. While the same search with on the break returns huge results [11], look at those results. Not one I see in the first few pages of links is using it as an expression, but just as part of a sentence. Finally, TIEOB has no mention of on the break but defines on the snap as I noted in my earlier post; so too does the glossary at billiardsinfo. So I ask you: Can you find any source using on the break as a defined expression?--Fuhghettaboutit 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries; I can ramble myself, and then some. My counter-arguments, to the extent I want to make any at all, are a) I actually incredibly rarely hear "on the snap" (in my crowd, if you said that people would laugh and tell you to quit watching Paul Newman movies so much); I do concede that it is in actual use as an interjection, and that it certainly predates TCoM. b) As noted earlier, I can anecdotally confirm that "on the break" is actually used the same way, at least after the fact. I've been on something like a dozen league teams in 5 or 6 different leagues in three major cities, and all of them have their own quirks; but ejaculatory comments like "YES! On the break!" at the advent of an 8 ball break I have heard in more than one of these leagues; again it's not overwhelmingly common, but not nonexistent either. c) I wasn't meaning to imply that it was somehow invalid just because popularized by TCoM; just saying it was, for the hell of it. d) I don't have any citable sources for usage of "on the break" as an interjection, which is why I suggested the entry be forked into one (single) entry for OtB, and a (dual) entry for OtS, with only OtS mentioning the interjectory/exhortatory usage. d) All that said, I can live with removal of OtB entirely, though would keep all the xrefs to it, and just change them to refer to OtS, just for kicks (no pun intended). e) That said, I'd prefer to keep OtB, because it is a term of art; we do not say "as a result of the break shot", we say "on the break", which without definition is potentially confusing. So, in conclusion, f) I prefer my suggestion above (with the sample code) but won't cry like a baby or anything if you disagree, and won't revert whatever edit you prefer. :-) PS: g) If this is the only one of the zillion edits of mine in the last several days that's raised any hackles, I'm both pleasantly surprised and (probably) relieved (I say "probably" because it's possible that the silence doesn't equal assent but simply a delay in noticing what I mangled. Heh.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes/no/maybe? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ping? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Lost this thread, just rediscovered. I am continuing with sourcing (and hope to have a surce for every definition soon). Added back in on the snap with addiitonal sources. Can't find any sources for on the break as a defined expression. If found, let's add it in as a separate definition.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broken ref citation

Can someone look at this issue with new eyes? I've tried everything I can think of. If you page down the article, there are two instances of LARGE red error messages about one of the reference citations not working in its shorthand <ref name="whatever" /> form. I can't for the life of me figure out what the issue is. If you are not seeing these errors, please tell me; it means my cache or session or something is hosed and the article is actually just fine. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. See the edit summary for the problem.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Good eye! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest round

All really good stuff. Only one concern from my quarter: I think we've lost some clarity on carom/carambole, because there are two senses (I know of) in this field for the word, (caroming c.b. off an o.b., as in "carom angle", and caroming c.b. off an o.b. to strike another ball), and possibly a third (to score a point in a carom billiards game, though I think that might have been a confusion with "billiard", sense #something). The dictionary.com definition, of the word as used in English generally, seems to be to broad. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Be bold!--Fuhghettaboutit

Well, in this case, my version of being bold would be to simply revert it to what it originally said. I assume there was a rationale for the changes you made that I'm not grokking, which is why I brought it up here. I figure we can come to a compromise version. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I like Heinlein but I'm not grokking your response. The definition was unsourced, bare-bones, there was no entry for carombole and it had a dubious tag. Add in those definitions you think are missing, but remember that the ultimate goal, as with all articles, is to source each and every entry. Right now we're still loosely adding and tweaking based mostly on our specialized knowledge. Do you seriously believe the prior entry has not been vastly improved? That I don't get.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll go look again; maybe I was sleepy or something. ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse english

The current definition for reverse english is not exactly what I understood it to be. It implies that it is the same as check side in that the angle of reflection is made narrower, however this is not the case in the sense I use. In Britain it is called reverse side but it must mean the same thing: say for example I wanted to deeply screw the cue ball off a straight pot so that it rebounded a rail and the natural angle of reflection wasn't wide enough, I could use reverse side to widen the angle. I would have to impart right-hand side to throw the cue ball wider left off the rail, and vice versa, hence the reverse element of the term. If there is a difference in the use of the term either side of the pond then I suggest reverse side should be given its own definition distinct from reverse english, and check side be cross-referenced accordingly. Kris 11:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

First the definition appears incorrect in that it says "If angling into a rail that is on the right, then reverse english would be right english, and vice versa." The english in that example, should be left. In The illustrated Encyclopedia of billiards, reverse english is defined as: Spin causing the cue ball to come off a cushion at a more obtuse angle and at a slower speed thatn a ball hit without english...spin that tends to make a ball move in the direction contrary to its natural motion...if a ball strikes a cushion at an angle between zero and 90 degrees (measured from the direction to the left of the contact point), then left english is reverse english." Here's the clarity I hink you're looking for: it also says "...also known as check side..." Does that help?--Fuhghettaboutit 13:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes that makes more sense, so perhaps the terms are distinct – I propose the definitions be changed as follows (with internal links):

[edit] Check side

Same as reverse english.

[edit] Reverse english

Spin causing the cue ball to come off a cushion at a more obtuse angle and at a slower speed than a ball hit without english, i.e. spin that tends to make a ball move in the direction contrary to its natural motion. If a ball strikes a cushion at an angle between 0 and 90 degrees (measured from the direction to the left of the contact point), then left english is reverse english^[2].

[edit] Reverse side

In the UK, sidespin imparted upon the cue ball during a deep screw shot that has the effect of shallowing its angle of reflection off the cushion in the opposite direction. For example, in snooker, a straight black potted off the spot from the left side of the table with screw and right-hand side, so that the cue ball is thrown wider left and up towards the blue.

Does that sort it out? That seems OK from my UK perspective, hope it makes sense to US players. Kris 14:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.

The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-tag the entry.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 16:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[modified by — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)]

This tag was sorely misplaced here. Evidence:

• "The article has content that may be useful and possibly more appropriate at Wikipedia's sister project, Wiktionary.": It may well be that Wiktionarians will like having a copy of this to examine for potential entries in the dictionary, but it is highly doubtful that much of this material would make it into Wikt. any time soon if at all, because of its highly jargonistic nature, and much worse, even if every term were actually accepted, the vast majority of the encyclopedically explanatory, cross-referencing material relating to these terms would be lost in the process of Wiktionarifying.
• "The final disposition of this article on Wikipedia has not yet been determined.": Rubbish. In one sense, the final disposition of this article on WP is the same as that of any other - it gets expanded, better sourced, more comprehensive and continues to improve as editors continue to work on it. In the other sense, the final disposition of every single non-Featured article on Wikipedia is in precisely the same amount of doubt as this one, since any one can propose an article for deletion at any time, and a debate will ensue about its merits. Which brings us to:
• "nominated for deletion": Hasn't happened, isn't likely to, and I'm quite confident it will be Kept, with an admonishment to source it better, which is what we've already been working on.
• "or expanded if possible.": This is precisely what the editors of this article have been doing, since before it was even a separate article. Please have some idea of the history of an article before you drive-by tag it with deprecating dispute templates.
• Given that this article is not a dicdef, nor even a collection of nothing but dicdefs, this tag does not apply at all. The article is an exclopedic, not dictionarian, exploration of the terminology of cue sports, the interplay between the terms, the specific cue sports subcultures that use them and how, their history (not in the etymology, but the cultural, sense), and much more. The list may contain some dicdefs in it, in the case of terms which do not need much exploration or for which sourceable historical, etc., material hasn't been located yet, but that is irrelevant. It does not make the article nonencyclopedic. Virtually every article on any term-of-art (or multiple such terms), be it medical, legal, technical, whathaveyou, also contains a dicdef of the term, in addition to more exploratory material.
• The TWCleanup tag puts tagged articles into Category:Redirects to Wiktionary, which is self-documenting as follows: "The pages in this category are Soft redirects from an article title with a less-than-encyclopedic scope. Pages linking to any of these redirects should be updated to link directly to the Wiktionary definition that the redirect points to."

• This article is not a soft-redirect, nor does it contain one (just a wikilink to a Wiktionary page that is not labelled a soft-redirect)
• This article has no Wiktionary target to soft-redirect to (other than an already outdated copy of itself, which of course would be counterproductive and rather silly)
• This article does not have a less-than-encyclopedic scope
• There is no Wikitionary definition that the (imaginary) redirect points to, ergo these instructions cannot possibly be complied with

• There is no policy or guideline forbidding or even discouraging the creation of encyclopedic glossaries like this one. Those who have a problem with glossaries existing in Wikipedia should take that up at the Village Pump as a general issue, not incorrectly dispute-tag articles that they don't like.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: A very short example of the difference between an encyclopedic and a dictionary definition:

Baulk: Also baulk area. In snooker, English billiards, and WEPF/UK eight-ball, the area between the baulk line and the baulk cushion, which houses the "D" and is analogous to the kitchen in American pool.

No dictionary would convey even 1/5 of that information (while it would convey radically different information such as the etymology of the word, which an encyclopedic glossary entry generally would not unless there were something especially encyclopedically interesting about that fact). The dictionary definition would read something like "An area on a pool or billiards table in certain games, at the breaking end of the table." There are much richer entries here than "Baulk"; I just picked this one because it was concise as well as illustrative. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I don't know if you're aware, but a while back there was a lot of talk over moving many glossaries to Wiktionary and removing them from Wikipedia. Got my dander all up, but then it died down. You have posted a preemptive strike if it crops up again.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hope so! Embarassingly, I did not notice that the tag was bot-posted until after I wrote this. But it's a good screed to dissuade future manual additions of it. I've contacted the bot author to have him excempt this page from the bot (I see similar request on his talk page, answered in the affirmative, so it shouldn't be an issue.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently your request was not seen or at least not acted upon as I just had to revert the tag again. See my exemption request here.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't have time to respond to each of your points above; rest assured that I disagree on most of them.

I'm distressed by the misconception of what a transwiki is. At any rate, for now, as long as the {{transwikied to Wiktionary}} tag remains on this page, it will not be automatically attempted again. (I'm looking for a better solution for that, as well.) --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 02:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur with every point raised by Fuhgehettaboutit about this here. No one is saying anything about the value of transwikiing. We are saying something about the value of a highly non-neutral tag that is making automated, blanket value judgements about the articles it tags. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: I will attempt Fuhghettaboutit's category idea in an attempt to get the bot to stop tagging here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

PPS: Actually, I just commented out the highly PoV "auto-judging", uncommented the actually informative neutral material, and left the category in place, so hopfully the bot won't ding us again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency, part of the discussion above refers to an exchange on my talk page, found here.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

since that seems to be the longer conversation, I've replied there. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A delayed postscript. If there were a true general consensus that all glossary material should move to Wiktionary, I'd could live with that. What I couldn't live with is no glossaries at all, i.e. simply merging the glossary-contained definitions into the Wiktionary definitions of the words (e.g., merging our "rack" related definitions into wikt:rack and then deleting the glossary from both Wikipedia and Wikitionary. So long as the glossary were preserved, I personally don't care what namespace it is in; the {{Cuegloss}} tag would only need a minor edit to handle the change. That said, I do not agree with the "get all glossaries off of Wikipedia" people, and will resist any such movement. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idea

It strikes me that it would be helpful to the reader if wikilinks to other terms in this glossary were somehow visually distinct from wikilinks to other articles, perhaps by use of a font change, such as to monospaced. This could be done with a {{Cuegloss2}} that works much like {{Cuegloss}} but is only for use in this article. It would be a very simply matter (with my text editor, anyway) to substitute all instances of:

[[#Something]]

and

[[#Something|something]]

with

{{Cuegloss2|Something}}

and

{{Cuegloss2|Something|something}}

respectively.

If there's any interest in this at all, it should probably actually be taken up at the Village Pump before being implemented, either because it may go against the Manual of Style too much, or it might be something that should be implemented more broadly, for use in all glossaries, here, e.g. a {{Gloss}} template. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template to make citing the glossary easier

I can't believe I forgot to post this here: There is a {{Cuegloss}} (Template:Cuegloss inline template that can be used to very easily link to specific terms, e.g. {{cuegloss|Jump shot|jumping}}. See the template page for docs and examples. 09:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Webby sources

What's our rede collectively (and with WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:EL, etc., in mind) on the value of citing billiardsforum.info and other bloggish online forums? One thing I've noticed about Featured Article/List status is that such sources generally have to go, in favor of "hard" ones. Then again, if the particular one being cited in at least semi-authoritative it at least makes the article more reliable in the short term. Hmph. I really don't know where I stand on this one. I think the anti-web slant of some of these guidelines is off-base, ironic, and hypocritical given what WP is, but sometimes they raise good points too. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree, and think we should only use it where we can't find a better source (and have looked). With that in mind, I am leaving it in for on the lemonade but removing it for on the snap, which already has three book citations.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. Copying this to WP:CUETALK and replying further there. I think it's important to start kind of archiving this stuff over there, because general consensus on what to do about this or that with regard to all these articles is spread around, well, on all these articles' talk pages! Kind of a mess.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The page number problem

On a tangent but in the same area. Is there any way to fix what I have come to think of as the "page number problem"? In most articles where I use "TIEOB", even if citing it multiple times such as in carom billiards, it's not enough that my listing of the pages used is a problem. Here it simply wouldn't work. Listing page numbers would be absurd because the reference would just contain half the pages in the book. I've been trying to think of a solution and...bubkis. Listing each page as a separate reference would be even worse. The references section would then have 100 separate entries just for that book. The only compromise (if this is necessary at all; am I worrying over something that I needn't?) is that after each use of <ref name="TIEOB" /> or <ref name="BCA" /> a page number could be listed in commented out text not in the reference but after the reference markup. Once again, I see a problem in that it wouldn't really function with the reference exactly, and it would add greatly to the article size which is quite large (but large by necessity). Is there a solution? Is there no need to address it?--Fuhghettaboutit 06:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I'll add this to my wikiresearch list — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Yes, it is important - nothing can get FA status (and often not even GA status) without citing specific pages. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

After reading WP:CQR, WP:CS, WP:FN and related stuff in-depth, it appears that the only way around this problem would be with WP:HARVard referencing:

Blah blah blah.{{Ref harv|Shamos1999|Shamos, 1999:27-28|1}} ... Yak yak yak.{{Ref harv|Shamos1999|Shamos, 1999:87|2}}

...

==References==

<references />

• {{Note label|{{Cite book|(Shamos's book details here)}}|Shamos1999|}}

Aside from the fact that it produces longwinded and distracting citations all over the rendered prose, I'm not even certain I have that formatted correctly. The ref label/note label system would be incredibly tedious and error-prone to use for a super-cited reference like this. I have an idea for a solution and am working on implementing it. It will work like:

Blah blah blah<ref name="Shamos1999">...</ref>{{rp|274-5}}<ref name="Tarsier2005">...</ref>

...

Yak yak yak<ref name="Shamos1999 />{{rp|89}}

==References==

<references />

Will get back to you. It blows me away that no one's already fixed this, but I've been reading this reference citation and footnoting stuff for 3 hours now, and it's just not there. Cite.php should never have been deployed in the state it is in. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Rp is now up and running! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk about tackling a problem and coming up with an innovative solution! I hope you're considering advertizing this somewhere, because it seems to me it fills a need that may be useful across many, many articles. Might I suggest {{Announcements/Community bulletin board}} which appears on the Wikipedia:Community Portal.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Just posted it to WP:FN's talk page and added it to that guideline as a "See also" with a brief explanation. I'm sure some crank will attack it, but am confident that the majority will see its value, and it may help get Cite.php fixed by broadly advertising one of its massive and really, really irritating flaws. NB: It might be helpful if you watchlisted WP:FN for a while and helped defend the addition. That page among many others (esp. MoS pages) that *ahem* certain editors, expecially a particular tendentious admin, are watching are subject to frequent "because I said so!"-style revert warring. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Working like clockwork. First entry at angled, and about ten others for BCA entries.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inning

Five-pins exception: I'd argue to restore that. It does no harm, we make all sorts of game-specific comments throughout the glossary, the exception is unusual (thus noteworthy) and the actual UMB rules use the term "inning" so the Cuegloss link from that article to this entry will be confusing. It could be genericized though; there are a few other games that use the one-shot-per-inning rule, such as killer (with the exception of the break inning, which may be either 1 or 2 shots). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you make it a little less of a solo exception, implying it's the only one and more of an example? It also struck me as odd because it's not exactly an exception. The prior sentence says usually ending in... so it didn't feel right. Maybe something along the lines of: "However, in some games, such as five-pins and _____, players' turns at the table are always limited to one inning, regardless of the intent and result of shots made."--Fuhghettaboutit 21:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. But I think the overall definition may be wrong, since it say it is a player's turn at the table, when I think it is really all players' turns at the table. That is, a match consists of all rounds consists of all games/frames consists of all innings, consists of all turns/visits.

[edit] Tickie-tick

I was watching a 9-ball match today and heard a couple of American commentators use the term "tickie-tick" to describe a shot much like "tickie" already in the glossary. They even discussed where they thought the name came from but didn't know. They were describing a kick/carom whereby the cue ball hits one rail, bounces off the 1 ball, potting the 3 ball over the corner. Is there a subtle difference here, adding the "tick" in the case of potting a ball instead of just rebounding back to the last rail? Kris 17:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the "tick" at the end is just onomatopoeia for the contact with the three ball. "Tickie-tick" should probably be added to the glossary as a new entry. What are the details of the show (incl. the commentators if possible), so we can use that as the source citation? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers SMcCandlish, I appreciate the onomatopoeic properties of the term, as well as its assonant and alliterative qualities (I appreciate that perhaps my sarcasm regarding the commentators' lack of knowledge may have passed unnoticed – but thanks for the extra elucidation, I'm sure many others reading this will appreciate it). The main part of my inquiry was about the potential dichotomy between such a shot resulting in a pot in a 9-ball/American 8-ball game, and just sending the cue ball back to the last rail in a carom game (as specifically stated in the current definition). I assume they're just synonymous then, in which case I would advise editing the definition to be more sensu lato. Korea's WPBA 9-ball Champion Ga-Young Kim edged China's Xiaoting Pan 7-6 in the final of the Carolina Women's Billiard Classic. The event took place from February 21-25 at the Gateway Convention Center, Rocky Mount, North Carolina, USA. This was the first event of the WPBA season. The commentators were "The Striking Viking" Ewa Mataya Laurance and her husband Mitch Laurance. They were clearly working for an American TV channel but it appeared on the UK's own Sky Sports Xtra channel between the hours of 1300-1400 local time (that's GMT) on April 4, 2007. Hope that helps you. Kris 23:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard the phrase (which doesn't mean anything necessarily), but I can tell you that tickie is incredibly common in carom billiards usage, and Mitch Laurence is not a player. Though he is getting better after years of fumbling commentary, he still makes tons of terminology mistakes. When he started he was literally a blank slate. They've been doing this for going on twenty years on ESPN—pairing a well-known professional with not just an amateur, but someone who has no familiarity—I've never understood it. Mitch is just the last in a long series of such ciphers. They had some guy, Kevin Cusack I think, and two others in years past. I guess they figure they will be good at asking basic questions of the professional that people at home might be thinking, that someone already experienced would not. The result, though, has been them having nothing to offer and having to often be corrected. You can sometimes hear Allen Hopkins getting slightly annoyed and restraining himself from correcting too much Anyway, was there a clear definition given? It would need independent attribution otherwise.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In the commentary Mitch asked Ewa what it meant, after she first used the term to described the shot. I'd assume she knew what she was talking about. It's probably just like SMcCandlish said – just a bit of onomatopoeia extending an established term. All the same, it was the "Striking Viking" who used the term, a legend of the WPBA, so the reference shouldn't be taken lightly, even if Mitch Laurance is just a charismatic layperson employed as a voice on some low-budget coverage of a low-popularity event. Kris 00:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, what the show/event being televised? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, it was the final of the Carolina Women's Billiard Classic. The show was just called "Women's Pool" on Sky Sports Xtra, but it was an ESPN show from America they were showing. Kris 12:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)