Talk:Snooker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Snooker article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Snooker is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Improvement Drive

As a CC of what Bigpad commented above in December - would it now be a good time to get this article up a few grades of standard? There can be quite a few complaints of how it is at the moment - too long, too detailed, "old fashioned looking" (and by that I mean it looks a bit "wikipedia article circa 2003" with its layout and style). I will run through some changes this afternoon - folks can feel free to comment on or alter what I do, I will just have a bit of an experiment on improvement. SFC9394 15:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have been to busy to even start his but certainly it's well overdue now. Length of the article is the major problem. Have a stab and we'll hopefully are contribute our ideas bigpad 20:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have made some fairly substantial changes. Improvements to the summary chapters in the main article welcomed. The content spun out into new articles was: History of snooker, The game of snooker and Notable Snooker Players. The content on those pages is just carbon copies of what was in the article, so they are actually the areas that require quite a bit of cleaning, sorting and polishing done to them - but at least we now have a fairly decent looking parent article from which to launch to these sub-articles. Comments and suggestions welcomed. The article is on such a nice, non-controversial, easily reference'able subject that I would fancy we would have quite a decent chance of getting it to feature status without too much extra work - Main Page feature would be nice if we could get it to tie with the WC finals (precedence for timing main page feature with events has already been set in the past). SFC9394 02:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
What a great job you have done, my friend! What we need do now is not allow the article to begin to sprout new appendages that will only recreate the size problem. I'll try and find some time to "polish" the existing sections bigpad 14:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! It should hopefully be fairly straight forward to keep it in check from now on, as any major addition has its own sub page to go to so nobody should (hopefully) feel the need to start adding lots of duplicate content. I will have a further look at the feature requirements to see how close we are to having something in that range. SFC9394 16:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As the header at the top of the talk page indicates, I have submitted the article to Feature Article Candidature. Hopefully things will go well. SFC9394 11:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prize money

Not every player who competes in British snooker tournaments is from the UK. So it's only fair to add how much the prize offered in pounds are in other currency equivalents, especially in dollars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.126.116.170 (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Eh. Wikipedia is not a currency converter, but to the extent such things are found useful in some cases, they must be dated, as per WP:MOSNUM#Currency, or they are meaningless or even directly misleading. That said, I don't really agree with this entirely. Taken to its logical conclusion, every mention of money would be followed by about 300 currency conversions. PS: You didn't even say what you meant by "dollar". The US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico and many other countries use "dollars". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It is understood that there are countries other than the US that wear the name "dollar" for their currency. But in most cases when simply "dollar" is used, it refers to the dollar of the US. So perhaps no need for confusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.217.45.255 (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Having just returned from 18 months in Canada, I can tell you that this is not true at all, and it is why the MoS says to use "US$5", not "$5". Anyway, I don't have any huge objection to adding a dated US$ conversion, since the largest number of WP users are American and it might be helpful for them. But it certainly isn't required. That said, if someone puts in a proper one, I'd be cautious about removing it - might look like across-the-pond POV editwarring. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sport overview

This article badly needs a Template:Sport overview infobox. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racking

Something the Featured Article review missed: The article never says anything about racking. At least a short description of how to set up snooker for play is needed; can probbly be cribbed (and shortened) right from Rack (billiards)#Snooker. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment and status

I think it is rather unwise to charge straight for Featured Article status. Many will view this as out-of-process and even arrogant or presumptious. My rede is that we should first (after addressing some of the FA review criticisms) seek Good Article status, then A-Class assessment status at WikiProject Sports, then go through Wikipedia Peer-review, then go for Featured Article status. Otherwise the article is just going to keep getting shot down and nitpicked by the FA assessors. It's a bit like a newbie user applying to be an admin after only two weeks on Wikipedia, if you see the analogy. NB: All of the sub-articles that Snooker has forked into will have to be bumped up in quality too, especially Snooker rules. That the article has been split and made summary style isn't going to escape notice. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As the one who forced it through I should just throw in a few words. To an extent I agree that a linear track should be followed, however I consider the current article above good class, specifically (from the criterion), "For articles longer than about 25 kB, rigorous reviewing of the Wikipedia peer review and featured article candidates guidelines is often more appropriate than the process here." - we are at 26kb ATM and it was always likely to rise as improvements were made rather than fall. I have to be honest and say the posting at peer review was particularly disappointing - it was at that stage that I was looking for a critique which would highlight the areas needing work and give an indications to how close FA status was, and whether it was worth submitting. The peer review received not a single human response. Obviously it is all a voluntary process and we have no right to receive a review, but at the same time it gave me no indication as to possible problems. It didn't even look likely that we were going to receive much in the way off feedback until near the end of the FAC either. SFC9394 20:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
NB: None of the above was intended as critical, just in case that wasn't clear; I simply wouldn't want persnicketty types to get irritated with any of us :-). GA seems a little more active, and at just 1K longer than their "at 25K, maybe not", I doubt anyone would object. A GA might help provide more ideas for polishing, and make a second FAC go better/faster. It also has other potential positive consequences, but I won't belabour them here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually one worth mentioning is that A-Class is more of a shoo-in if the article is already a GA. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur about the spin-off articles needing work - one of my few concerns when pushing this forward was that they would reflect back on the parent article. I think both they need work and the concerns posted by AE Mouse need attention. This article also could do with growing just little bit - not too much, but just so it reads a bit longer than ATM. SFC9394 20:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on all points. One of the points I wasn't going to belabour, I'll at least mention: WP:FT would require that the sub-articles be well-developed, properly sourced, etc., and FT appears to be hard to achieve without all or at least most of the main articles being at least GA status with several of them FA status. Not like FT is in reach this month or anything, but I think it's quite doable in a year or so. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
As an aside comment, I am going to upload a new image and overwrite Image:Snooker balls triangled.png with something better and free. When I first cropped and uploaded that pic from flickr it was under an acceptable licence but now the author has just either deleted it or taken it fully private so it is not really good (and would eventually get deleted from the commons). I requested (and got) all the other flickr pictures on this page reviewed by an admin so they are nice and secure in the long term. SFC9394 20:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Keen. I always thought that one looked a bit hokey, esp. when it is smaller. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Vast improvement! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW: What is the process of getting said admin review? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess taking it slower is going to end up with something which is more long term stable. Because the flickr review bot is down on the commons I think folks are easier at reviewing any specific images which need to be reviewed. I posted comment at the commons ANB and User:Bryan was kind enough to review them. After playing about some more I have uploaded a test render of another triangle Image:Snooker reds.png. If anyone has any good ideas as to what these (or variations on the theme) could be used for then feel free to let me know - the resolution can go as high as required. SFC9394 14:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Pot" never defined

Resolved. Problem edited away.

The lead talks about "potting" the balls, and says it will be defined later. However, the term is used later in the article, again without definition.--207.233.88.250 17:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

However it gets fixed, I'd keep it short and use {{Cuegloss|Pot|pot}}: pot. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


This is absolutely not resolved. If this article were to be read by someone who had never observed snooker, they would have no idea that balls are not directly potted by the cue. The roll of the cue ball is only alluded to in the opening paragraph; later on the in the article, where the game is described, there is a distinct impression that the balls are directly potted, which those who know snooker know is not the case. This needs clearing up for those who have no idea of what snooker is (and there are many outside of the UK)! If I can come up with clear wording, I will amend, but it is a challenge! Similarly, the term snooker is inadequately defined, the uninitiated would have no idea what this article is on about. Myredroom (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of (any) encyclopaedic article is not to define every word used from first principles. The first words state that "Snooker is a cue sport" - cue sport is wikilinked - the uninitiated are one click away from finding out what a cue sport is. I wouldn't consider the words "using the cue ball to pot the red and coloured balls." an allusion - it seems like a pretty direct statement of fact to me - cue ball, red balls and pot are all wikilinked to the correct article. Along with the multiple pictures (and video showing the break off) I would have thought it all very clear. There is a difference between clarity and laborious repetition of definitions that have been adequately wikilinked and are explained in detail in their respective articles. SFC9394 (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I honestly think that my approach would more adequately fit the definition of encyclopedic than yours. Since the age of printing, an encyclopedia was used precisely because its readers DO NOT want to research multiple sources in order to gain a simple overview of any subject. There is clearly a problem with the article if in the 761 words used to describe the game, THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL rule is omitted. I have not, for example proposed that all 18 circumstances under which a foul and a miss may be called be included in this article; if I had, I would understand and accept your position (indeed I think your position could be of great use on articles like eyeglass prescription). I firmlybelieve that in order to improve the quality of wikipedia, it is essential, at least to try, to read articles as if we had no existing knowledge on the subject. In this instance, if that were the case the sentence "using the cue ball to pot the red and coloured balls" combined with the later passage "The object of the game is to score more points than the opponent by potting balls in a predefined order. At the start of a frame the balls are positioned as shown and the players take it in turns to hit a shot in a single strike from the tip of the cue, their aim being to pot one of the red balls and score a point" would give rise to no understanding of the fundamental principle of snooker; namely that the player may only strike the white ball with the cue, and that coloured balls are potted as a result of being struck by the white ball. This fundamental fact is AT BEST alluded to, but I think your pre-existing understanding of snooker is apparently clouding your judgement. Encyclopedic articles must include the bleedin' obvious, because since the beginning of time the bleedin' obvious is only bleedin' obvious to those already in the know. What else is an encyclopedia for? Furthermore, referring to the article "cue sports", also makes no mention whatever of this crucial fact! If instead the casual reader were to refer to the article "snooker rules" they would need to already have a clear understanding of what the role of the cue ball is (and I think they should attain that understanding in this article, and no other). A clear explanation of how a ball is potted and the respective roles of the cue and cue ball, would serve exclusively in the interests of clarity and not in the interests of repetition;
Perhaps you should edit the article on football and remove the sentence that states that the ball is kicked and suggest that readers could instead find this out from an article called "ball sports" or "football rules" instead. If you want to make sensible contributions to WP then it does not serve anyone well for you to impose your own notion of what is and isn't appropriate in an "encyclpaedic article" (your words, but I think you mean an article which is part of an encyclopedia, rather than an article which is encyclopedic in the true sense of the word), but rather to at all times consider the uninitiated reader, and understand why they are referring to an encyclopedia.
You are wrong my friend, the place for such a fundamental fact is right here in this article, and it has to be included and will result in no repetition and will ENHANCE clarity no end. Myredroom (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Snooker pool variant

Resolved. Either will be sourced and added, or won't and won't.
[This topic was moved here from Talk:Cue sport]

Isn't there a "mini-snooker" game which is played on a Pool table using just the set of pool balls? The reds are 10 balls (all the stripes, plus 3 solids), and the point balls are the remaining ones which coincide with their point values. There is a shortage of one ball, so I'm not sure how it works. 71.250.17.62 13:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can document it, please add it to the snooker article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mangled edit

An edit by 76.168.117.239 (talk · contribs) mangled at least one reference citation; I'm super tired and my eyes hurt, or I'd go fix it myself... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

The "see also" section of this article currently contains a very long list of pointers to "list" articles, for various competitive records. These lists are (or should be) accessible via the portal and categories already. I reckon they should be removed, rather than cluttering up the article endnotes. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

With no opposition to this in the two weeks since it was posted, I've now removed these links again. They can be easily reached through the portal and other articles linked. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead image & Size

I have restored the larger size (and made it 300 px). Wikipedia:Accessibility was quoted for forcing thumbing of all images - and for images in the article body I am happy with that - however the text is only a guideline and not a policy, hence it is not enforced absolutely. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images specifically says:

“ Cases where a specific image width is appropriate include: ... a lead image that captures the essence of the article (recommended not to be smaller than 300px, as this will make the image smaller for users who have set 300px in their user preferences) ”

I feel quite strongly on this - as one of the reasons I spent a couple of weeks worth of time completely re-writing this article last February was because it was a mess. Content is always the most important thing, but an aesthetically pleasing article is also important for actually drawing people into wanting to read it. Indeed the lead image itself is worthy of a little further comment by me simply because over the Christmas period I happened to see it in a completely independent print magazine (far away from the world of Snooker) - there was no doubt that it was sourced from here, and no doubt that the photo editor chose it for exactly the same reason we have it as the lead - it is a striking photograph - we should be showing it off to draw the reader into the article not hiding it as some tiny thumb. SFC9394 (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Having read over the MoS entry, you're spot on. I do think it should be moved back to the very top, though. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind if it is moved to the top, I suppose it depends on what monitor it is being viewed as to how much white space is generated by the contents. SFC9394 (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I've moved it back for now. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

Resolved.

Someone keeps removing the lists. I think they should be there as there is more chance of people finding them. Samasnookerfan (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are they important enough that they need to be linked right from this article? This is not a portal to every single snooker-related article; we already have better places to list these, such as the tournament articles themselves. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I see what you mean, but somebody has obviously put a lot of effort into creating them, including me, (I created Top-16 snooker players), so they have a right to get seen, and links from the main snooker page is the best way they get seen, there aren't many links from other pages. I have actually created an article now though called Snooker Lists where there is a list of all the Snooker Lists, obviously, so do you agree thats the best way of doing it? Samasnookerfan (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That's an excellent compromise. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Great. Where theres a will theres a way. Samasnookerfan (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge in "List of snooker equipment"

There is a rather pointless short, incomplete, and unsourced list at List of snooker equipment that should simply be a short section here; the items in it have their own articles (e.g. cue stick) or are covered in much better detail at Glossary of cue sports terms. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Support I agree, it would be better served as a para in here Ged UK (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Support The list doens't need to be on it's own. It would serve a better purpose in this article. Undeath (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Largest break to lose

In professional tournaments, what has been the largest break a player has made and yet lost the frame? Is there such a statistic? Samulili (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

On the BBC's Snooker Mastermind this year, a filler programme during the world championships, they said that the highest losing score in a frame was 80 (Terry Griffiths (I think) won the frame with 82, though i don't know if that was a break. Ged UK (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Id have tought it was this,

Highest Aggregate Points in a Single Frame

          World Ranking Event:                   185 – Sean Storey 93 – Graham Cripsey 92: 1992 Asian Open qualifying, Stoke-on-Trent.[1] Bobo6balde66 (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)