From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk archives for Glossary of cue sports terms (current talk page)
<< 1	< Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3 >	3 >>

Contents 1 General, 2006 1.1 Title and tone 1.2 Overhaul 1.3 Call shot and call pocket 1.4 Snooker glossary merge proposal 1.5 Free ball 1.6 Please review: Consensus and consistency needed on spelling to prevent ambiguity & confusion 1.7 New 'In turn' entry in the list  is , now WAS gibberish 1.8 Merge completed

General, 2006

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. [1]. 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. [2]. 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. encyclopedic) 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)

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)

Call shot and call pocket

Template:Resolved1=Use what reliable sources say.

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)

Snooker glossary 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)