Talk:Alex Higgins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] Nationality

Alex Higgins, as a cis BRITISH, but because the Irish government confers Irish nationality on anyone born on the island of Ireland, including Northern Ireland, he is also an Irish citizen. "Northern Irish" is NOT a nationality! A "BRITISH CITIZEN" is anyone born anywhere within the United Kingdom of which 4 countries are a part, namely England, Wales, Scotland and Norther Ireland. Similarly, anyone born in Scotland or Wales are NOT "Scottish" or "Welsh" by nationality, they are BRITISH. However, this is slightly different for citizens of Northern Ireland. As already mentioned, they can be either BRITISH or IRISH by nationality, or indeed both, should they so wish. In other words, anyone born in Northern Ireland is a "dual citizen".

You have to elect to be given the second nationality you are entitled to. Whilst not political Higgins is from the unionist tradition and if there is a suggestion that he has Irish nationality it should be referenced. Otherwise he is from Northern Ireland, with a British passport. --194.125.109.86 07:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. There's a strong tradition here (imported from actual British culture's usage) that Northern Irish, Welsh, Scottish and English are indeed nationalities, within the "supranationality" of British. Ranting here on a random article's talk page won't change that consensus. Anyone with a problem with that issue should probably raise it at the Village Pump. The issue affects thousands of articles, not just this one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Errors

There are some errors in the article: 1) The score for the 1982 world championship was 18-15, and not 18-16 as listed in the article. 2) In 1976 world championship final, Higgins not conceed early before Reardon had "reached the winning post". Reardon won the frame he needed to win the match 27-16. However, Higgins did conceed several frames early when he could still have techniclaly won them. 3)While it is correct that Higgins was ranked number 2 on two occassions (since the ranking list was created in 1976) it is worth noting that for the 1982 / 1983 list, Higgins had two ranking points deducted for misconduct. Otherwise he would have been ranked number one, based on tournament performance.

The article does not list many of Higgins' tournament victories. I would suggest adding:

  • 1972 Irish Professional Champion (beat Rea 28-12)
  • 1973 Men of the Midlands (beat Reardon 5-3)
  • 1975 Canadian Open (beat Pulam 15-7)
  • 1977 Canadian Open (beat Spencer 17-14)
  • 1978 Benson and Hedges Masters (beat Thorburn 7-5)
  • 1978 Irish Professional Champion (beat Dennis Taylor 21-7)
  • 1979 Irish Professional Champion (beat Patsy Fagan 21-13)
  • 1979 Tolly Cobbold Classic (beat Reardon 5-4)
  • 1980 British Gold Cup (beat Reardon 5-1)
  • 1980 Padmore / Super Crysalate International (beat Mans 4-2)
  • 1980 Tolly Cobbold Classic (beat Dennis Taylor 5-4)
  • 1980 Pontins Professional Championship (beat Dennis Taylor 9-7)
  • 1981 Benson and Hedges Masters (beat Griffiths 9-5)
  • 1983 Irish Professional Championship (beat Dennis Taylor 16-11)
  • 1984 World Doubles Championship (with Jimmy White; beat Thorburn and Thorne 10-2)
  • 1985, 1986, 1987 World Team Championship (playing for Ireland)
  • 1989 Irish Professional Championship (beat Jack McLaughlin 9-7)

Tim Sandle

Hi Tim,
You are correct about the 1982 final: it was def. 18-15 and updated accordingly. As to the 1976 final, I recall seeing Higgins shaking hands with Reardon and hearing the commentator (Ted Lowe or Jack Karnehm) say in total surprise that he had conceded the frame in progress (and the match) early although not entitled to do so [those words ring fairly clear]. It's also my understanding that the final session of that match (in Manchester) was not played. Can you check your sources and post a reply?
Unfortunately many of Alex's victories were in events that would be regarded a mickey-mouse today. True, those were all that were available but I think only his two B&H Master's titles stand the test of time and should be added to his article. I've a feeling that he also won one or two other major tournaments and will check this out. Patrick

[edit] Category

The Northern Irish snooker players category clearly states Higgins' country - Northern Ireland. And it's a sub-category of Category:Northern Irish people. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I propose to save space by removing the NI flag. Alex's picture is there already and a flag doesn't need to appear unless a suitable usable photo of the subject can't be provided. Alex is described as from Northern Ireland in the article, which is enough. Patrick.
The photo is gone, but I'm getting the feeling that there is a general consensus around the entire site that bio infoboxes should simply not have pictures until a photo is available, instead of using flags. I've seen many, many flags like that removed and not replaced with anything.

[edit] Media links OK?

The media links aren't working for me -is it me, or are they dead links? MikesPlant 00:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Mike, media links work ok for me (they open in Real Player). Maybe copy the link location and see if it can be cut and pasted into Real Player or Windows Media Player? Tue. 2 May, 15.49 Patrick

[edit] re {{tone}}

I'm tagging this particular paragraph:

His unorthodox brilliance is best encapsulated in his break of 69 against White in the penultimate frame of their World Professional Snooker Championship semi-final in 1982. Experts and players continue to cite it as one of the greatest ever breaks under pressure. Higgins was 0-59 down in that frame and probably one ball away from going out, but managed to compile a clearance that almost defied belief. He was scarcely in position until he came to the colours. In particular, one pot will live long in the memory: a three-quarter-ball blue into the green pocket with the cue-ball screwed off the side cushion towards the top cushion. Dennis Taylor considers that the shot could be played 100 times without coming close to the position Higgins reached with cue-ball (he actually went much too far for good position on his next red).

Its language isn't formal enough (actually, it's not formal at all), it is POV, and at the very least it should be presented as a third-party's opinion, and should be sourced.

  1. Who decided that Higgins' "unorthodox brilliance is best encapsulated in his break of 69 against White in the penultimate frame of their World Professional Snooker Championship semi-final in 1982"?
  2. Who exactly are those "experts and players" who "continue to cite it as one of the greatest ever breaks under pressure"?
  3. Who thinks that the clearance that he managed "almost defied belief"?
  4. Who thinks that the particular pot described "will live long in the memory"? In whose memory?

I think that the problems are obvious, and that {{tone}} should stay. ---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit and explained why on your talk page bigpad 18:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I won't revert it back, to avoid engaging in an edit war, but you seem to be missing the point. It's not about whose knowledge of snooker is deeper (I'm pretty sure yours is), it's about how the articles must be written. My comments are not pedantic; they are based on official policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia. See WP:V and WP:RS.---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
VladimirKorablin is right, on every single point. This entire article, like so many of them on this topic, is riddled with POV aggrandizements, unsourced claims of what "everyone" or "most people" think, unverified assertions of fact, uncited quotes, etc., etc. It reads like a magazine piece. Rather than slap {{Magazine}} on it, I've inline-tagged some of the problems (just in that paragraph; I could do that with the entire article, but that would make an unreadable mess of it, and might be considered a WP:POINT. I think the real point should get across with the minimal tagging I've done so far. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, that paragraph has been edited but some of your insertions need explaining. You will see that I have said "arguably brilliant". If use of "arguable" is prohibited in Wiki, we're all done for. It was brilliant, since commentators then and since described it as such, even if these comments are often in video format. Patrick bigpad 14:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Understood; I've explained them with HTML comments and links to the relevant policies and guidelines. To summarize here: "arguably brilliant" means that someone has sourceably made that argument (otherwise it is forbidden "original research", i.e. a Wikipedian simply asserting this because he/she has personally found it to be true but can't demonstrate it with sources: WP:NOR). Wikipedia is not in a position to label him brilliant (WP:NPOV), and if we present the alleged fact that he has been labelled brilliant by third parties, that fact needs to be reliably (WP:RS) sourced (WP:V/WP:CS), just like any other fact. The apparent fact that commentators then and since have said this or that also needs to be sourced (this can probably best be done with snooker magazines and reliable websites on the topic, unless you've recorded broadcasts and can cite them as to date and other details), again just like any other asserted fact. Wikipedia isn't "done for" if we can't say aggrandizing things about players without sources. See Irving Crane (a Good Article) and Walter Lindrum (which just missed G.A. status because most of its source citations are general and at the end instead of inline and citing specific facts). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pot on Blue Ball on 69 break

I edited the text to correct the side spin put on the ball. It was actually a load of left-hand side that Higgins used to zip the cue-ball off the cushion. When screwing back with reverse side, it's necessary to strike the cue-ball on the opposite side to the direction you want it to travel after hitting the cushion. Watch the video clip on that frame and have a look. bigpad 17:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I question whether the passage is of any encyclopedic value, frankly. The shot is not described in enough detail to actually envision is, nor is it illustrated some other way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
As to the shot in question, the description of it is spot on, based on my recollection of it and on having watched it over and over on the video. And the use of "live long in the memory" is illustrated by the revision to insert a colon and then what Dennis Taylor said about it. It was a shot that perhaps no one else could ever do. And in further illustration of how incredible it was, Higgins *did come back too far with the cue-ball to have an easy shot on his next red. That is not POV: it's the case as shown by the video. But if someone good at graphics would be willing to assist me with an image of that shot, I take the point that it would enhance a wider understanding of what happened. Patrick bigpad 14:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
"Based on my recollection of it" is precisely the problem. That is original research, not reliable sourcing. If you have the broadcast taped, and know (or can find out) when it was broadcast, on what network, and other details to do a {{cite}}, then you are probably good to go, if you describe the shot in strictly factual terms without opining about whether it was "good" or "too much" of this or that. There is nothing wrong with citing video sources as long as what you write is neutrally and accurately descriptive and not interpretational; this is how the "Plot synopsis" of all movie and tv articles (and book ones, etc.) are made, after all. The problem with the memory passage is that you are asserting a "should" personal opinion, which is a WP:NOT and WP:NPOV problem; even asserting that it is memorable is, really. There is probably a way to phrase this differently to get around the problem. "Notable" seems to be a catch-all WP dodge for this POV problem, but people may challenge it if it not sourced as notable (if a snooker magazine or article on a snooker site mentioned the shot, that would establish that it was in fact notable.) What Denis Taylor said about it: There needs to actually be a cited quotation from him; the reader has no way to verify that what the article says he said is what he actually said, if we just assert that he said something and don't even quote it but just paraphrase it. Come back too far: "Too" is POV; it's a value judgement. Even if we could let that slide (perhaps as "farther than would have been ideal", without "too"), again we have a WP:V/WP:NOR problem: Your analysis is your own, not a sourced one from a third party (it is a "novel synthesis" in WP:NOR terms). I.e. the issue isn't that it didn't happen, it simply about whether the reader can verify that it happened, and that WP isn't putting editors' own value judgements on what happened. Image: I agree that would be very helpful: See the freeware "CueTable" tool linked to in the Ext. Links section of the main Cue sport article; I believe it is fairly easy to use to generate shot diagram[me]s, and it does have a snooker option. Hope this helps. It can take a while to get this stuff firmly in one's head. There are many, many edits I've wanted to make to articles, because, dammit, I know for an absolute fact that (whatever) is true, but if I can't source it I just need to make note of it on the talk page and hope that between me and everyone else there a source will be found. These articles aren't going anywhere, and talk pages get archived, not deleted; we have all the time in the world, and at WP's growth rate, it's a near certainty that any important fact will eventually be sourced and added if attention is drawn to the need to add it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that break, and the blue ball shot in particular are important and worthy of attention. My subjective view is that the blue shot is the defining single moment of Higgins' career. I remember it being discussed in a broadcast by some top players and I think it was John Spencer who said words to the effect that you would have to be mad to even attempt it. That would be a good quote to obtain if anyone can do so. He also commented (I believe tongue-in-cheek) that it was the worst break he had ever seen, as Higgins kept running out of position! Again, I think that's worthy of mention in the context of how the frame is generally assessed.
In terms of a description of the blue shot, I suggest something like this: "Out of position, Higgins had the cue ball in the region between the pack of reds and the blue spot. Unable to find an easy pot on a colour, he was forced to shoot a long blue off its spot into the green pocket, which he did with a high amount of left-hand side. The blue was potted, and the white screwed onto the lefthand cushion above the blue pocket, spinning off the cushion back down the table, coming to rest behind the pack of reds. (Higgins then maintained the break by potting a red almost the length of the table, into the same green pocket.)" -- and I agree a graphic would be useful. 81.96.161.52 17:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the blue ball was exceptional but the wording in the article is clear enough and needs no revision. bigpad 21:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Why was the above introduced? bigpad 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As discussed in user talk, this article (among many other snooker ones, and sports and other fandom articles in general - I dont mean to single this one out especially) is riddled with peacock language and weasel words. It is written like a magazine article not like an encyclopedia article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Earnings

The figure quoted is a bit of a back of an envelope calculation. It certainly is not his career earnings from prize money. There are between 20-25 players who have earned £1 million + by this way. Higgins does not feature on this list. --194.125.109.86 07:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a press estimate on what he earned through snooker, not his winnings. Text updated accordingly bigpad 22:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a figure availble anywhere for what he did earn in prize money; I have looked on the internet and can not find one. Allowing for the length of his career and the fact that prize money was quite high for the time compared to now for the latter part of his career it would seem that he must have earned more than £500,000 but less than £1,000,000 but is there an offical figure anywhere? --78.16.207.57 (talk) 17:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Willie Thorne's comment

Higgins' reached four world finals and won two of them. In winning two he is too many minds a better player than John Parrott, Cliff Thorburn, Dennis Taylor, Terry Griffiths and Joe Johnson. He definitely is a better player than Wilie Thorne. It is not appropriate to have an also ran like Thorne given such focus in this article. I propose deleting this quote. --212.2.173.75 21:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am the same user as above signing in from a different PC. I have removed the Willie Thorne coments for the reasons set out above. If the comments were from another world champion like Stephen Hendry or from a noted journalist like Clive Everton they may well deserve to be in the article. But Thorne has little notability other then as a 'character' due to his appearance. Journeyman player who gave himself the description Mr Maximum for achievements away from tournament play. Reputation as a BBC commentator suffers from the fact he has bet on matches he was covering for BBC. He may not like Higgins and Higgins may not be likeable but his views should not have the focus they did before the edit. Where do you then draw the line: a couple of lines from Mike Hallett and Neal Foulds on what they think on Higgins too. --213.190.141.210 13:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated the section about Thorne, as it is *referenced and Thorne, a contemporary of Higgins, won a ranking event in the 80s and reached at least one other final. Your opinion of him as being a journeyman is not relevant. Please do not remove referenced text on the basis on your own POV. The bit about being in four finals is fair enough but I have swapped the order round. bigpad 22:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Where do you draw the line as is set out in the final lines of the comments above. Why focus on Willie Thorne's opinion and not Mike Hallett or Neal Foulds. Yes Thorne won one event- but so what. He doesn't really pass the passage of time as a notable player and has blotted his copy book as a commentator. If it was Clive Everton or Steve Davis but it really is out of place in this article.
Willie Thorne is a former top player and a commentator. He was also a contemporary of Higgins and is an authority on players from that era and today. Personally, I think his comments about Alex in that book are motivated by jealousy, Higgins being a far better all-round player than Thorne ever was. But you simply cannot ignore a referenced work by someone who was far from a nobody. Can you give me a referenced opinion on Higgins by Hallett or Foulds that could go into the article? Please do not change again or I will have to refer to an administrator as being in breach of Wiki policy on editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigpad (talk • contribs) 09:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You have not read the passages above; there was no bald statement that there should be a quote from Neal Foulds or Mike Hallet- there was a statement that if you included a quote from another player who was in the top 16 for part of Higgins' career why stop at Thorne. The mere fact that any one such reference is from a primary source is irrelevant; as Higgins has been a public figure in some shape or form for about 35 years there are no end of such sources that could be used. But all of them can't be used as the article would become excessive in size. You then have to think who you should include and candidates that spring to mind include commentators during Higgins time such as David Vine or Clive Everton. They include Ray Reardon, Cliff Thorburn or John Spencer other players who he beat or lost to him in world finals. They include other players who he was associated with in terms of a sequence of matches such as Terry Griffiths or Steve Davis. They include his former doubles partner Jimmy White. There is no compelling reason to include a comment from Willie Thorne. Above you state that Willie Thorne is a former top player and a commentator, a contemporary of Higgins and is an authority on players. Thorne is not a direct contemporary of Higgins though they did play for some of the same time, nor is he a particular way an authority on players- he has done TV commentary and there are grounds for putting his standing as a commentator at issue and there is no need for me to repeat those in full. Suffice to say the doyen of tv commentatrs Clive Everton does not commentate with Thorne on the same match whilst both are employed by the BBC. You also state that his comments were motivated by jealousy without that idea being ventilated in the article itself. Thorne in short has no particular standing such that his view of a two time world champion and four time finalist needs to be heard. This is not a question of removing negative comments on Higgins'; all of the men listed above have made critical remarks about Higgins. If you feel any bona-fide edit of an article is wrong because you disagree and thereafter want to go to an administrator: go ahead. Others might address the issue in dispute first in a more comprehensive manner: you are giving a minor figure from snooker in the 1980s a prominance in an article on a former world champion that he doesn't merit. --78.16.109.13 (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
All the above is your POV. Open your eyes: that reference is there and is contradicted by the next sentence. What Thorne said is fact, unlike your POV. bigpad (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You haven't read the passage you respond to once more. There are umpteen references available for comments on Higgins and there is a logical sequence in which to use them. A comment from a former world number 7 is not needed in this article.--78.16.160.173 (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I've restored Thorne's comments. Regardless of whether they belong in the article, it's attributed POV. What was left read:
  • Higgins' natural aptitude and cueing ability revolutionised the sport and helped elevate the sport on to the world stage in the 1970s and early 1980s.
That's unattributed POV, and really should be removed. You can't remove attributed POV and leave unattributed POV. One Night In Hackney303 00:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair comment and I have revised the POV stuff in the second sentence bigpad (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Stanton's recent edit is sensible bigpad (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flag icon

Please stop adding the Ulster Banner to the infobox. There is a broad consensus that this is a dreadful idea. Use of the Ulster Banner implies a Loyalist political stance that the bio article subject may not have, and the flag has not been official for many years, being used only as a partisan symbol today, with the sole exception that some sports bodies continue to use it, ostensibly apolitically. But infoboxes even of sportspeople are not sports results tables, they are summaries of facts of an article subject as a human being. It is appropriate to use {{flag|NIR}} in tables of snooker tournament stats next to Higgins's name, but not in his infobox. Similar political issues arise with the use of the Union Jack (which is presently the only official flag N.Ir. is subject to) to represent N.Ir. Until N.Ir. gets a new flag, N.Ir. people get no flag icons at all in their infoboxes. For background (and to participate in the debate if you like) see Wikipedia talk:Don't overuse flags, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#Northern Ireland, Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland, Talk:Northern Ireland. Continued editwarring to force the use of the U.B. in N.Ir. bio infoboxes is transgressive of WP:NPOV, and simply gives ammunition to those would like to TfD the flag icons altogether, or at very least effectively ban them all from infoboxes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing the Northern Ireland flag. This article is about a sports personality from Northern Ireland who competed in his sport at a professional level, representing Northern Ireland.
There is no consensus that suggests this is a "dreadful idea", as you put it.
Usage of the flag of Northern Ireland does not imply "a Loyalist political stance", and you are clearly showing an ignorance of the subject if you believe that you are correct: that Loyalists have and do use the flag is of no concern of mine.
The flag's "official" status (by "official" perhaps you are referring to its use by the former Northern Ireland government..?) is irrelevant. The symbol is no more, or less, partisan than the flag of any other country.
As I keep pointing out to you, the flag icons remain in the infoboxes of Higgins' peers.
Until Northern Ireland aquires a new flag, the current, and only, flag of Northern Ireland shall remain the flag that represents Northern Ireland uniquely. For reference, please see Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland, Talk:Northern Ireland. Might I also respectfully suggest you read a decent, balanced book on the subject of Northern Ireland so that you do not continue to insult me.
Continued edit-warring to force the absence of the Northern Ireland flag, in direct contrast to and conflict with, a precedence that has been set with similar articles (see Steve Davis, Ronnie O'Sullivan, Jimmy White, Willie Thorne, Ray Reardon, Terry Griffiths etc for examples) in Northern Irish bio infoboxes is transgressive of WP:NPOV. --Mal 03:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Guys, This is a difficult one, right enough, and the solution or deadlock won't please everyone. On the Dennis Taylor talk page I proposed removing the NI flag as Denis' picture is there and that the flag only need appear if a suitable usable picture of the subject/person can't be provided. Why this was not done with snooker stars from other countries in the UK, I don't know. IMHO, it's not necessary for the Steve Davis article to show both his picture, the St George's Cross and have him described (*correctly) as English!
I thought that idea of mine would help us avoid the type of political questions that were starting to appear on the Taylor talk page. My "suggestion" seems to have been accepted, but perhaps only by accident.
Is it applicable to this article? No suitable pic. of Alex has been found, so IMHO it is not inappropriate to use the flag of Northern Ireland. And the flag in question was the official flag of the government of NI which ruled here from 1921-72. It is also true that many people from a nationalist background never recognised this flag and/or were uncomfortable with it. However, Alex Higgins is an ambassador for NI (albeit one who brings embarrassment to this part of the world on occasions), as well as for Ireland. He never denies his Irishness. Still, as he is primarily an Ulsterman (and I use that word carefully) and from NI, the NI flag seems most appropriate to me. As someone who would probably be perceived as a northern nationalist, I have no objection to that flag appearing in lieu of Alex's picture. I have no axe to grind here: I am primarily an editor and would like this empasse removed if possible. All the best, bigpad 23:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
What happened to the consensus? [1], this has gone on long enough. There is no official Flag!--Domer48 12:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a completely dead issue. See the HTML comment about this in the infobox (as of this edit and many others before it that Setanta747 (talk · contribs) keeps reverting with a nonsensical replacement that goes on and on about not putting the UK flag in there, which no one has done in many months, and which perpetually dredges up Steve Davis, et al., utterly missing the point) — see the pages mentioned in that HTML comment. This issue has been debated for months (with regard to flagicons, and for years with regard to the highly-politicized Ulster Banner more generally on Wikipedia), and there is an overwhelming consensus at all of these locations that this sort of usage, to indicate nationality, should not be done. Setanta and a handful of other holdouts continue to editwar over it, but this doesn't change the fact that consensus has been communally reached on this matter already. See also User talk:Setanta747 for a virtual Mt. Everest of evidence that this user does very little but editwar over Northern Ireland issues. This is basically just trolling and blatant disruption and if it happens again, I'll take the matter to the Admin Noticeboard, which perhaps I should have done two months ago anyway. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sixteen red break

The text says he compiled a 16-red break, but goes on to list 17 colours. Surely a 16-red clearance would consist of either 16 or 22 colours, as the initial "red" doesn't count as a colour? BeL1EveR 15:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It does make 'sense', actually: 16 reds requires 16 colours + the last six colours (once each) = 17 colours! bigpad 08:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't make sense. The final series of colours yellow to black is irrelevant. The first ball is not classed as a colour as it has a value of 1 point, and so it should not be counted. You have 16 one-point balls, each potted with a single colour to follow, which means 16 colours (then the other six). The article specifically lists "1 brown, 1 green, 5 pinks and 10 blacks" - which is 17, and would therefore require 17 reds. It needs correcting. 81.96.161.52 17:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Having revisited the source of this info, it is clear that they always cite the first 'red' in their description of the break. In this case it is clear that the first two balls were brown (1 point); green (3 points); then reds and colours as normal. Consequently I have clarified the wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs) 18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)