Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cue sports

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope 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.
Shortcuts:
WP:CUETALK
WT:CUE

Contents

[edit] Frequently asked questions

  1. Why is the main article name Cue sport instead of Billiards?
    A. Because "billiards" has too many meanings. To most Americans it means "pool". To topically knowledgeable Americans it quite conversely more often means "carom billiards". To yet other Americans, and most people in the industry regardless of nationality, it means "cue sports in general". To English-speaking continental Europeans, it generally means "carom billiards" exclusively. To the British, it almost always means "the specific game of English billiards". Historically it has also meant different things, such as carom, pool and bagatelle games played with a golf-club like proto-cue called the "mace". Until the late 19th century in America, it mostly meant American four-ball billiards. And so on. This multi-level ambiguity problem means that the core article on cue sports as a general, encompassing topic needs to be cue sports, while the article on English billiards is at English billiards, etc. The term "cue sports" is generally not used much in other articles, where the ambiguity is unlikely to be problematic, as at Billiard ball and Billiards table. Also, "cue sports" encompasses a few games that are not billiards-family games but are played with a cue, such as some variants of the disks-on-a-board game, carrom, and the related novuss.
  2. Why is WikiProject Snooker a separate project instead of a taskforce of this one?
    A. For several reasons. It predates WikiProject Cue sports considerably. While this is not by itself the most compelling of reasons to remain separate, there are others. WP:SNOOKER's membership has very little overlap with that of WP:CUE, and participants in the former are almost exclusively focused on snooker topics, with little interest in the broader scope of cue sports, modern or historical. By contrast, while many WP:CUE participants are as theoretically interested in snooker as they are in Cowboy pool or straight rail, they do not have the depth of involvement and background to be principal organizers of the snooker articlespace, with all of its player statistics changing all the time; that requires dedicated snooker fans. This does not mean that new WikiProjects should be formed for every major cue sport. Snooker is a huge world-wide phenomenon, and is the most televised and most watched of the entire class of these games. While eight-ball and nine-ball are very popular internationally as well, they are really simply variants of pool more generally, and most practioners (and fans) of one are of the other, and more besides such as one-pocket and bank pool. It is a more diffuse area of coverage, and so WP:CUE itself is well-equiped to handle the relevant articles' needs. However, some proposals for WikiProject reform would eventually force WP:SNOOKER to become a WP:CUESPORTS task force. That doesn't look to be any time soon (nor even particularly likely) as of this writing (July 2007).
  3. What should I do about terminology in articles? I know we're suppose to wikilink a lot, but link to what?
    A. This one is easy! We have a large glossary of cue sports terms. That's a long article name, but don't worry - you don't have to type it. You can use the simple inline Template:Cuegloss, which works like this: ...if the {{Cuegloss|Cue ball|cue ball}} is {{Cuegloss|Scratch|scratched}}... will display as "...if the cue ball is scratched..."
  4. How do I categorize the player article I've just written, about a Canadian snooker and pool player, who is also a noted pool and snooker TV commentator?
    As with any article, put the person into every relevant category: Category:Canadian snooker players, Category:Canadian pool players, Category:Snooker non-player personalities, Category:Cue sports non-player personalities. (There may be more specific such categories over time.)

[edit] Towards making this a fully active WikiProject

Resolved. Long since accomplished.

Any and all input welcome while the initial drafting of this WikiProject is in progress (and aftwards too, of course!) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're doing a great job. The style guideline is well thought out and absolutely needed. I think the proposed project is far enough along that you should go ahead and post it as a project. I just worry that there aren't enough people with the specialized knowledge necessary to participate. Have you though of making a list of wanted articles on player profiles? We don't even have articles on many of the best and most famous players in the world presently and in the past. If you started such a section I can add much detail. --Fuhghettaboutit 14:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, bro, even if it's just me and you, having a WikiProject to store a Todo list, templates, etc., would be a big help! As for player profiles, that should certainly get in there. I've been so concerned with the sorry state of the main articles on the games themselves and their organization that I hadn't gone there yet, though I did adapt (in draft form) the snooker player profile template for pool players (need to do so again for carom players, etc.) It's a start... There's still a lot of [[Category:...]] and {{cuesports-stub}} cleanup to do on existing player articles, many of the former of which can be found in [what is presently named] Category:Billiards, snooker and pool stubs. Lots of articles in there that are not yet cat'd under [what is presently named] Category:Billiards or any non-stub sub-cat thereof yet.
> We don't even have articles on many of the best and most famous players in the world
Yep. It's a sad state. But with templates (in the Wikipedia sense) and article "templates" (in the "fill-in-the-blanks" sense) I think that will be much easier to deal with down the road. Ironically I literally right now am having a 9' pool table installed, and also have family arriving today for the (US) Thanksgiving hollerday period, so I may be out the gap for a bit, but I should be around and back at this some time next week.
OH! If you've not already added your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Cue sports and User:SMcCandlish/WikiProject Cue sports#Participants please do! It wouldn't hurt to post something, anything, to the User:SMcCandlish/WikiProject Cue sports and subpages' talk pages, just to a) give evidence that there's interest and the ball's already rolling (no pun intended), and b) to actually record suggestions for improvements, etc. E.g., adding in a recommendation to put a players section as a high priority item in the WikiProject; given the upcoming shindig at my place, I might even forget!  :-). Also, at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Add requests for speedy renaming here there is one, and at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 16 (1.14, 32, 33, 36, and especially 35 and 13) there are several, cue sports-related category move/delete items that could use a supporting "vote", and also a conforming rename at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals. I'm a little concerned that my "one-man show" attempts over the last several days to clean up this entire article space may rub some people the wrong way if at least one other person doesn't seem to be in consistent favor.
PS: "Dabbler in three cushion (high run 13)." Very impressive! My high run is 2 <pout> I think even that was blind luck. Heh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you need to worry about rubbing people the wrong way--sad as it may be, I may be the only other Wikipedian who has edited in this topic across many articles so there's no one to get upset:-( By the by, I originally wrote Billiard techniques in the main article on billiards which, like the glossary I wrote, got forked off. I don't think the name the forker used works. Any suggestions?--Fuhghettaboutit 19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Pretty please? It would just take a few minutes. I should disclose that I have some "enemies" on WP, because I am a very outspoken Inclusionist; there are people who will happily attack things I propose (if they notice them) if I don't have active supporters. Personal vendatta crud aside, I agree that between you and me we're the only regular editors of non-snooker topics; but there are active snooker topic editors and they are largely the ones making waves when it comes to moves and renames. As for Billiard techniques I agree that's a dreadful name (sounds like "techniques for scoring points in carom games"). What about Cue sports technique? I'm thinking also another fork, to Cue sports equipment, at least as a category if not a 2nd-level meta-article under Billiards [⇒Cue sports soon!], to keep the "master" cue sports meta-article leaner and under the recommended max article length. I think "Main article at [[whatever]]" is a Good Thing. :-) At least when it is done properly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totally overhauled Three-ball article!

Resolved. Just an FYI.
[Moved from Talk:Cue sport.]

I'd worked up a draft article several months ago on three-ball, then someone else put up a very skeletal public one (that nonetheless had info mine didn't.) I've merged and expanded them into the current public article, with citations to several (not very authoritative) sources. Additional source citations supporting a) various consensus points about what the overall rules of the game are, and b) several unsourced facts, would be very appreciated. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: Marked this topic "resolved" since that article has its own talk page for any further discussion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical info

Regarding the billiards article, I have been meaning to start reworking it into a history of billiards but the main source I would think to start working from, The Billiard Encyclopeda (Victor Stein, Paul Rubino) was borrowed by a friend and never returned. I gathered you were an "inclusionist" (as you so label yourself). I am the main author of Wikipedia:Notability (books) and noted your comments. I really hate the label deletionist and, parenthetically, have fought hard at times to keep certain articles others were arguing to delete but only because I felt the subjects were notable. I do think it is and should be self-evident that encyclopedia articles be on notable subjects. Anyway, let's work on this and not open up that can of worms.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the history stuff is sorely lacking in most of these articles. Sad to hear of your Stein/Rubino loss. I don't even have that one yet myself (I think I may go Amazon it right now just so at least one of us has it on hand. :-), though I do have Shamos's latest New Enc. of B., which will be a good source for a lot of stuff. The article "templates" I want to draft will definitely include a ==History== section by default. (On the incl. vs. del./notability topic, I replied in userspace) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm GOING to get it back. It's just that the borrower is not reliable sort and, frankly, I was crazy to lend it out, but lots of whining does have its uses I guess. I have Shamos' encyclopedia also—you'll note that I began sourcing the glossary using it a few weeks ago. Most glossaries are unsourced but let's make ours better.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hope you do! I looked into getting one myself, but realized I'd have to save up quite a bit of money to get one. I can't believe it's that expensive! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to move Billiards to Cue sport & make Billiards a disambig

Two related proposals:

  • Conforming move: Create a Billiards disambiguation page (and Billiard redirect to it).

Thoughts? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Support the renaming of the article, as I believe the worldwide view is described above. It would also be more encyclopedic to present it this way.
Question: This would mean that "Billiards" would still have its own article, only about the family of carom games, correct? --ChaChaFut 02:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that's an open question. The word would certainly still work in Wikipedia; but at least for the nonce I think it should go to Cue sport, just so as to not freak anyone out. The "issue" is that to MOST American's it means "cue sports in general"; to SOME Americans and most Europeans, Australians, Canadians, Irish Republic citizens, etc., it means "carom billiards games", and to most English, Northern Irish, Scottish, and Welsh, it means "the specific game of English billiards", from what I can gather. I'm not even certain that I'm completely accurate in this assessment's details, only in the fact that the term means at least three different things depending on what one's background is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support the name change. I created the billiards article definitional header to address this very problem. Regarding the preceding post, I'm not sure. The problem is, as noted previously, that Billiards means different things in different places. If we make "billiards" into an article on the carom games that leads to the same problem—in England it refers solely to English Billiards. In Belgium it refers solely to three cushion, etc. I think the best way to go is to have the carom games under the umbrella Carom billiards and make billiards into a disambiguation page, with Cue sports as the lead post, followed by the descendant articles.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — The rename is being warmly debated at Talk:Billiards#Move of this artcle to "Cue sport". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — It's been over a week now; any further input? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remaining problem with the disambig proposal

I don't think that was thought through too carefully by any of us. It turns out that hundreds and hundreds of articles link to Billiards when trying to refer to some form of cue sport. Actually making "Billiards" (with the -s) be a disambig. page will not actually serve anyone particularly well. The Billiard (no -s) is now a useful disambig page, and "Billiards" redirs to Cue sport, which has a standardized disambig note at the top directing people to Billiard if they aren't seeing what it is they were looking for. Is this good enough for everyone? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation & move results

Resolved.


Here's my tally of the consensus at Talk:Billiards and Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Cue sports on two closely-bound proposals. Feel free to correct it if you think something in it is inaccurate:

Making the search term/wikilink [[Billiards]] go to a disambiguation page

(i.e. create a disambiguation page and move Billiards out of the way.)

Renaming the present Billiards article (i.e. the content) to Cue sport

(to make room for the dab page and provide a non-ambiguous top level article name; make redirs to it from "cue sports", "cuesport", etc.)

  • User:SMcCandlish supports without reservation, and opposes "Billiard-type games", "Billiard family games", etc.
  • User:Robert A West opposes, but favors "Billiard-type games", "Billiard family games", etc.
  • User:Anþony supports, with the caveat that use of the term shouldn't be too overboard
  • User:Alai somewhat supports, but favors "Billiard-type games", "Billiard family games", etc.
  • User:Septentrionalis somewhat opposes ("doubt the usefulness"), but recognizes the ambiguity, without suggesting an alternative name
  • User:ChaChaFut supports, with a reservation rendered moot by the consensus on the disambiguation page idea
  • User:Fuhghettaboutit supports without reservation
Results

There's broad consensus to make [[Billiards]] go to a disambiguation page, which necessitates that we arrive at consensus about what to call the extant article at Billiards. On that topic, there's a solid bloc of support for Cue sport, with non-controversial caveats, and one fervent opponent. The other alternatives proposed thus far all have "billiard(s)" in them, opening the question of whether they can still be unambiguous enough to use.

Arguments against [[Cue sport]]:

  • "Cue sport(s)" isn't a recognized enough term (too new, not used broadly enough, or both).
  • "Cue sports" aren't really sports, just games; the industry is just pushing them as "sports".
  • Someone might think it means games involving verbal or gestural cues, like charades.
  • "Billiard games", "billiard-family games", etc., aren't really ambiguous because they're generalized terms.

Arguments for [[Cue sport]]:

  • It is used internationally in the sport/industry with a more consistent meaning than any other term, and is a general classifier like "water sports" that is not ambiguous (well, until you think dirty >;-)
  • George Carlin's assertion that it's not a sport unless you could get killed aside, all sports are "games"; cue sports are games of physical skill competed in by professionals at regional, national and international levels, with "regulating" organizations, so they are clearly sports.
  • It is easily understood simply from its word parts; charades isn't a sport, so no confusion will result.
  • "Billiard games", "billiard-family games", etc., are ambiguous because many speakers on both sides of the Atlantic don't use the term "billiard(s)" to mean cue sports in general at all (British readers who vehemently deny that snooker is a form of billiards, Americans who think it means and must always mean carom, etc.), putting us right back where we started. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So now what? I'm not an admin or arbitrator and I don't feel I'm in a position to "declare" consensus, but will opine that I feel that the consensus leanings are strongly toward the rename. If anyone feels their positions have been miscast, I'll be happy to correct the above stuff, or you can just do it yourself of course. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Van Corteza AfD

Resolved.


Lee Van Corteza's article is up for AfD (deletion). Please give your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Van Corteza. SportsAddicted | discuss 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The result was keep. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub templates and categories

Resolved.

As part of WikiProject Stub sorting, I would like to ask you all to participate in the SFD discussion that is going on regarding the stub templates and categories for this project. It's kind of a big mess right now and I would like to straighten things out. Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 21:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The results of the discussion are as follows:
{{cuesport-stub}} / Cat:Cue sport stubs

I also noticed a template in the Wikipedia namespace (Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Template:Cuesports-bio-stub) that you might want to propose at the WikiProject Stub sorting Proposals page. I would recommend using {{cuesport-bio-stub}} to match {{cuesport-stub}} You could then move it into the template namespace and it could be upmerged into Cat:Cue sport stubs (similar to {{snooker-bio-stub}}). If you have any questions, let me know. I'd be glad to do it myself if you'd like. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Marking this topic "Resolved" as it's all been taken to WP:SfD and WP:WPSS/P. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Template:Cuegloss to make Glossary wikilinks easier

Just created the {{Cuegloss}} template. See that page for template documentation. Basically, it makes is much easier to create terminology wikilinks to the Glossary of cue sports terms without having to keep typing such a long article name. If anyone is feeling gnomish, the extant links of that sort can be converted to this template at will; doing so will help alert editors that the template even exists and how it is used. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

NB: This template should not be subst'ed; doing so will completely defeat the entire purposes of the template. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tournament results diagrams

[Moving this over from the non-talk page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)]

Such as at 2005_Mosconi_Cup — where do these charts come from? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ

They originated in the Ryder Cup pages... The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
Is there a template for this, or are they built by hand? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Template:Cue sports nav, a navigation box for all relevant article pages

See the WP:CUE#Navigation section for details. See also other new templates at WP:CUE#Templates. Some of them are still drafts and need input. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please support the category cleanup

Resolved.

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 2#Category:Billiards could use some supporting "Rename" !votes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Here Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/February also, at "{{Cue-sports-bio-stub}} + conforming twiddles". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I could still use some help on this, especially the latter one. Just a moment of your time to say "per nom". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hop to it!

Please see the to-do list on the main page (or directly at WP:CUETODO). The "Wanted" list of new articles (or at least sourced and accurate stubs) has been been prioritized, by an intersection of the subject's importance and the number of redlinks to them discovered so far. If you are more interested in maintenance than wholesale article writing, there are loads of other to-do items that may interest you. The to-do list is very regularly maintained, so it is recommended that you watchlist it (watching the WikiProject Cue sports main page won't watch the to-do list; it has to be watched separately). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Five-pins source?

The Five-pins article is now in fairly good shape. Please help us find an English-language (or even Spanish or French) source with regard to this game. Having only Italian sources (which get mis- or questionably-translated the same way by both Google and Babelfish) has left several crucial questions about the finer details of the game rules wide open, because the machine translation just utterly mangles the original in key places. Aside from that lingering issue, I think it's actually one of the best basic articles I've put together so far. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ALERT! Alfredo DeOro AfD

Resolved.

A meritless AfD against ol' Freddie has been filed. Please oppose it here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfredo DeOro — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Article was Kept. Should have been Speedily Kept, since the deletion nomination was in blatant bad faith, but oh well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone know Japanese?

At ja.wikipedia.org here there are two pool-related movies listed, without English names showing, and I'm wondering if anyone can ID them so we can look 'em up in IMDb:

  • 道頓堀川（1982年・日本）
  • ナイン（2000年・日本)

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template on players' articles

The template {{Cue sports nav}} is added to a few snooker players' articles, e.g. Ronnie O'Sullivan, Graeme Dott. As the template isn't directly relevant to the articles, it would be best if it were removed. Christopher Connor 16:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

How is it not relevant? I do imagine that over time it would fork into some variants, like a more snooker-specific one with lots of snooker topics and just one row of "see also" links to more general topics, but WP:SNOOKER hasn't made one yet, so I'd leave the "stock" one in place until we get to that point; some navigation even if a little general is better than no navigation. The {{Cue sports project}} tag on the talk page is a different story. I think I did accidentally slap it on the talk pages of some players who are snooker players only, in which case it should be removed in favor of the WP:SNOOKER template. Some players have both because they are, for example, both snooker players and Mosconi Cup pool players, so both projects have an immediate interest in shepherding the articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It just seems to be only loosely related to the article. It's a bit like putting a template on ball sports onto a football player's article. Also, only a few of the players have the tag on them and others don't. Christopher Connor 11:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Haven't gotten around to all of them yet! Anyway, it's' the best that we have for now. I'm doing more templating than anyone else in these topic areas, so it'll probably be me that makes more game-specific variants of the navigation bar at some point, but others are certainly welcome to give it a shot. In the interim, better some nav than no nav! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I very much agree with this reasoning. I think a navigational template should be used on pages that are actually referenced on the tempate, and not on much else. This also seems to be how other navigational templates are used. I would think that people checking out a pool players article are not very likely to want to check out some obscure billiards game. If they do there is a link to the pool article (where the nav template is obviously useful). And yes, I think that no nav is better than irrelevant nav. Havardk 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see some precedential discussion, if there is any. That is, if a consensus on this issue has generally formed, where was it formed? Right now, here, it's just one opinion vs. another, and that's not very guiding. :-) In my experience, I see both sorts of usage - navboxes that only appear on articles mentioned in the template, and navboxes that appear on relevant articles that are not mentioned on the template. Arguments can be made for either usage, but I've leant toward the latter ever since the auto-collapsing code was installed in most navboxes. The major argument against seems to be that people interested in X are not likely to be interested in the parent topic of X, which we'll call Z, nor topics A, B and C which are also "descendants" of Z. I don't see any evidence that this is actually true (and I know it is not true for me, as a reader rather than an editor, though of course that it completely subjective). The major pro argument is that navigation leads readers to richer, related content and helps them explore a topic, and that limiting navboxes to only the topics that appear in the template is both somewhat self-defeating of the purpose but also inspirational of overly-long navboxes (cf. {{United States topics}}). I'm not asserting an "I'm right!" viewpoint here, just curious if this issue has already been explored (at WikiProject Templates? In the Village Pump?) in sufficient depth that an identifiable consensus has already been formed and can be relied upon. (If there has, it should be added to as advice in Wikipedia:Navigation templates which is presently entirely silent on the matter. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
While I'm a passing member of this project, I'd say that this template doesn't belong on individuals pages. It's not directly relevant so it shouldn't be there, in my opinion. On the other hand, it encourages further development of cue-sport articles. Depends what you're driving at, but the encyclopaedic answer is to add it the template where it's relevant. And nowhere else.... The Rambling Man 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting patent sources

Resolved. Self-resolving commentary.
[This thread was refactored in from User talk:SMcCandlish since it is more salient here.]

I am writing Baseball pocket billiards. In my search for sources I came across this patent application for a new game called "BLAZZ". Thought you might find it interesting (not the game itself, but the existence and methodology of the patent application).--Fuhghettaboutit 14:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The format it is nice, the way Google does it in that PDF frame (well, nice if you have a PDF plugin installed, but I would think most of us do at this point). The text itself was also interesting in that it indicated that the 1974 ver. of the BCA rulebook includes games not listed in the later versions. Time to look for a copy! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Glad you pointed that out. Can't find the 1974 edition, but earlier editions would likely have the same different material right? I just ordered the 1970 edition from amazon.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
And I just got the '71! I think we were both doing that pretty much simultaneously. Anyway, yeah, I figure any version at least as old as 1974 should have that material. I've been meaning to add something somewhere about the differences between the World Std.ized Rules and the old ones, anyway, so that'll come in handy for that as well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup progress

All the idenfied cue sports stubs that were bios have now been tagged with the new {{Cue-sports-bio-stub}} tag, which sorts them into the new Category:Cue sports biography stubs. The parent category is weirdly named Category:Cue sport stubs; I've opened a SfD here that will resolve that typo. Please support the move at the SfD. This is the last of the needed category renames. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog at this page

I'm not sure this page should have a backlog tag on it... happy to be persuaded otherwise. --Dweller 11:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Was in reference to our incredibly huge to-do list, which is technically a transclude. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
NB: The template feeds into Category:Wikipedia backlog, which is general/everyone, not Category:Administrative backlog, so I don't see an issue with it myself. Is it causing a problem of some kind? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems someone else had a problem with it - it's been removed. --Dweller 14:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh well. Didn't seem to be having any effect like attracting "I'm bored and want to do something constructive" editors, so no big loss. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book recommendation

Resolved. Self-resolving commentary.

Considering what a goldmine Shamos' encyclopedia is, I picked up another book by him. Wow! You want an overview of the entire sport, you have to get this. Pool: History, Strategies and legacies (Amazon listing, if you're interested).--Fuhghettaboutit 03:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds good. Just ordered one (for $7, not $64, heh). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:53, 8 March 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)
Sounds right to me. Wasn't meant as a criticism, BTW; it's just something I've been thinking about for a while. Like, the three-ball article is nothing but webby or otherwise questionable sources, because there just seem to be none. Yet everyone knows how to play. It's a true folk game. The week before I moved to Toronto, I played about 6 hours of dollar-ante three-ball in San Francisco. Some 4 or so months after moving to T.O., I end up doing the same thing one night when there were kinda too many players at my local one-table watering hole for eight-ball to be anything but frustrating for everyone but the two people at the table. The rules were about 95% identical. Yet no one's ever read them. I called Gino & Carlo's in San Francisco this week; knew they'd run three-ball tournaments in the past. Asked for a copy of the rules. "Oh, we don't have printed rules. It's like bar pool; ya just know how to play." ARGH. And most of the webby rules are obvious copy-pastes of nine ball rules where "9" has been globally search-replaced with "3". I dunno what to do at this point. I think the article's worth keeping, but the sources are so shaky and contradictory. If anyone gets a hare up their butt to AfD it, it will almost certainly go down under WP:N (the 'reliable' clause). Bzzzzt. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good resource

Resolved. Self-resolving commentary.

If you are looking for a free online newpaper resource for articles, I just found a new one (other than the NYT which I don't pay for). Note that I have searched high and low and there are very few free archives available. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, apparently one of the most popular papers in the country at one times and headed by Walt Whitman for a time has a free online archive from 1841 to 1902 at http://www.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/eagle/. Type in billiards and you'll see pahe after page of results for example.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool! How do you get the full NYT articles then? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
If you have a home subscription, you don't pay for any of their premium online services (so in a sense it's not free per se). You are restricted to 100 archive articles per month but I've never even come close to using that up.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Categories

Cat:Cue sports celebrity amateur players (and more specific subcategories thereof, which are the ones that should actually be used; the top-level one is just a subcat container). Intended for bio articles of people notable for something else (e.g. Jackie Gleason and Jerry Orbach), not for am players who are notable for being am players, and probably should not be added to an article that does not sourceably document the subject's ardent involvement in pool or whatever. I believe this category will obviate any need to maintain a list of such people, which was already being questioned over at Talk:Cue sport. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

These are up for CfD in a nomination that has been in my view improperly expanded from a single (for the empty snooker one) to multiple days after the fact, without CfD tags on them. Could use some additional input from the project over there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MAJOR annual pool tournaments -- yesterday and today

I was wondering if there should be a category for MAJOR pool tournaments, so that one could click a link to read more about the event.

Johnston City was a MAJOR tournament in days gone by, and there are others that were prominent in America.

Legends of One-Pocket comes to mind, Clyde Childress Memorial Tournament which took place in Kentucky each year. Glass City Open in Toledo, Ohio, which ceased to exist last year, but was an annual event. Hustlers Jamboree is another one. One can read about these tournaments in pool literature.

The International Pool Tour, though it looks like it may have an end soon, is another MAJOR pool tournament event, the biggest tournament purses, multi-million-dollar purses, with Efren Reyes winning $200,000 in December 2005 in Orlando and much more.

Today, for instance, a couple would be U.S. Open Nine-ball Championship in Chesapeake Beach, Virginia, and the week-long Derby City Classic in Louisville, Kentucky, each January. The BCA Open in Las Vegas, which is going on right now as I write this, is another annual pool event which takes place each year that attracts players from around the world. Do you think this would be a worthy category? That way the reader could learn about the games played, the rules, prize monies, who won, et cetera. RailbirdJAM 11:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets not forget the historic Jansco brothers' Stardust Opens.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
See WP:CUEEVENTS for list of needed tournament articles (add to it as needed). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronnie Allen Pool Player

I was attempting to initiate an article about Ronnie Allen, but notice there is another "Ronnie Allen" article, but it is a different person. However, they have the exact same name. How can I begin an article about Ronnie Allen the pool player, so that it does not cause any conflicts? Thanks in advance. RailbirdJAM 20:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Click here: Ronnie Allen (pool player) and start writing. I suggest after creation you add at the top of the existing Ronnie Allen article the following code: {{for|the pool player|Ronnie Allen (pool player)}} which formats as
For the pool player, see Ronnie Allen (pool player).
.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Or we can move Ronnie Allen to Ronnie Allen (footballer), and make Ronnie Allen be a disambiguation page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure. All that really matters is that people searching for this Ronnie Allen will find him and there's no real primary topic here; either way.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
PS: RailbirdJAM, what happened with your Ronnie Allen (pool player) article plans? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trick shot

Hey people I am working on trick shot and any help would be appreciated...if you are interested contact me on my talkpage.Vandalfighter101 11:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly needs it, and I've worked on it a bit myself. It especially needs coverage of the major tournaments and their winners/runners-up. As I've expressed elsewhere to you, I think it's a good idea for now to also include coverage of artistic pool, but that clearly at some point should be its own article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 WPA Men's World Nine-ball Championship

Since the tourney's ongoing, I'd need help from you guys. :D --Howard the Duck 11:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cool new sortable tables feature

See IBSF World Billiards Championship; the "widgets" in each table column allow the tables to be inverse sorted. Very cool feature. Needs to be added to lists of championships, lists of events, etc. How it works is documented at Help:Sorting. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice: Zanetti article being AfD'd

Marco Zanetti (UMB three-cushion world champion) has been taken to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marco Zanetti. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nine-ball overhaul

Major changes have been made to the Nine-ball article, including addition of lots of sourced material, esp. on European rules changes that are starting to seep into international competition, addition of more derived games, plus some general restructuring and cleanup. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carom photos needed

There appear to be zero photos, either on WP or on Commons, of anything relating to carom billiards. Not even the balls! The best we have are lithographs, usually of extinct games, from the 1800s and earlier, and a cheesy, cartoonish CG image of the balls. If anyone lives near a hall with a carom table, please just take a digital camera down there for a little while and get some usable shots of the balls, how the table is set up for various games (i.e. initial ball positions, if any are specified) and so on. Actually, I will see if I can borrow some from the billiard supply store near me, so I can at least get photos of them next to pool balls for scale, but I do not have a carom table and no hall near me has one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've managed to provide a couple of pics, but more are needed, showing the game being played, showing a carom cue in comparison to a pool cue, and so on. Actually, what we really need are side-by-side pics of a carom, pool and snooker cue, showing the length, a closeup showing butt differences, and a closeup showing taper, tip and ferrule differences. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have four different carom cues and many more pool cues, but alas, no snooker cues. I also don't have a camera so what the hell am I doing in this thread? I really should pick up a camera. Hmmm, I'll ask for one for my birthday. If I get one I'll take a whole bunch of shots at a carom room of varous things including comparisons.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cue sport FA

Hey. As a (very) part-time member of the project, I was wondering if we could instigate some kind of FA drive? I'm 100% certain an article like Steve Davis would (with a bucket of work) get there. Let me know if you'd be prepared to spend some time working with me on it! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but this will need to be done one step at a time. The order I would suggest is Peer Review, followed by a bid for Good Article status, then WP:SPORT A-class assessment, and finally Featured Article. It's really rare for an attempt at FA status to succeed if there hasn't been peer review and GA (A-class is less vital, but can't possibly hurt). PS: Do you mind I repost this to WT:CUE and WT:SNOOKER? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course. I've got a fair bit of experience over at WP:FAC with football and cricket articles so I know the deal (I'm now on 17 featured articles/lists). I'm seriously going to suggest we avoid a GA - that could take months with the current backlog. I think with my FAC experience and your cue knowledge we can go PR then FA. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
P.P.S. Repost away, the more the merrier! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Works for me then! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, well Steve Davis seems like a good place to start! I'll get going on manual of style issues and start adding/refactoring sections. I'll also probably add a bunch of {{cn}} templates - we'll need to be watertight on references for FAC to succeed. Let's kick it! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
We also need to identify some additional likely candidates. WP:CUE#GA and WP:CUE#B-class are good places to start, as is WP:SNOOKER#Article list. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm onto the Romford Slim now. This is exactly the kind of article which could help escalate the project's profile. All interested parties (particularly those with reference-able material!) welcome!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Those new to the FA process may find useful this step by step guide to it --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Troco

I am not an expert on cue sports, but I am interested in Elizabethan passtimes, and I have started an article on troco which I have tagged for your project. - PKM (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Oh, you really, really, really want to get Mike Shamos's The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards (you can sometimes get it for as cheap as $4 used from Amazon.com), as it chock full of info on virtually every pre-1900s billiards-like game of this sort.

[edit] Merge WP:SNOOKER and WP:CUE?

What do we think of the idea of merging WP:SNOOKER into WP:CUE as task force? I don't think this would affect day-to-day operations in any way at all (e.g. the snooker project tags wouldn't be deleted or anything, just modified to point to the right place), would make WP:COUNCIL happy (they prefer it if closely-related projects merge), and (why I'm proposing it) would give us a larger, merged list of participants with a centralized talk page and help keep both projects active, not tagged with {{Inactive}} nor sent to WP:MFD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)