User talk:Poolkris

User:JiFish/wel --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 10:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Your question on WP:NUH

You wrote: I want to put the eight ball rack image in between my contents table and the flags at the top of my user page. How do I get them all on the same line? When I use the "thumb|centre" command it separates them all onto their own lines. If anyone would be kind enough to reply to this coud you send it to my talk page please. Cheers. Kris 10:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this is regarding your question on the help page. You need to use the Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. Just follow the link and play around with it in the sandbox. Pls let me know if you have trouble with it -- Lost 14:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Billiards glossary

Thanks for all the additions. The article has been sorely lacking in commonwealth definitions. Although I added some when I initially drafted it—"screw," etc.—it's generally outside my expertise as an American who plays little snooker.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding a few of the recent additions, I am against a separate definition for felt, and of the use of that word in any definition to describe table cloth. At least in the U.S., it's very much a no-no to call it felt, and experienced players/table mechanics, correct new players whenever they do so, in similar manner to the way an English teacher might chide a student for a terrible but common grammar gaff. Similiarly, though english is used to refer to draw and follow by some, it is highly looked down by most experience players, who use it only for sidespin.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm okay with a definition of felt, which refers to cloth, which in turn says don't call it felt!; I jumped to quick. As for english/English, it should remain lowercase, for the same reason that any word used in a form where it is not a proper noun, is not capitalized—"The French call french fries pomme frites." Again, thanks for all the additions.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I created the definition of hooked, and of snookered, but my definition of snookered was, as far as I remember, the same or near the same as hooked. Someone came along and added all the present text for snookered, and I left it alone because snooker is not a game I play and I am only passingly familiar with the terms. Please feel free to rewrite. By the way, in another online incarnation, I answer questions at allexperts under the name Pool_Teacher, here.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(Name of game) pool, and specific games for colo(u)rs

I have just begun to look at all the additions. The problem I am encountering is language usage that may be proper in the UK, but sounds utterly bizarre to an American player. For those definitions, if they are proper, they need to be defined as specific to the UK.

For one, I am seeing multiple usage of piped linked to "8-ball pool" and "9-ball pool". No one in the U.S. would ever say that. It would be akin to saying "football ball game". Another is the usage of colors for numbers.

For instance, in the definition of blue ball, you start with its definition in snooker. That's necessary, but then you move on to separate definitions for the blue ball in nine ball and eight ball. First, they are only potted in sequence if not already made. In nine ball any ball can be made on the table at any time by a combination carom etc. It's not the second ball in sequence--often. Second, Americans (and I think Canadians as well) almost never refer to the balls by their colors; it's the two ball. Third why are you describing it specifically for these two games? The two ball, which also happens to be blue, is used in every game; straight pool, one-pocket bank pool. etc. If there is some specific usage for the UK here, please define that in, but otherwise, the color definitions should just be for their usage in snooker and at most a mention of the corresponding number.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I just completed a massive tweak. I reverted some changes (kept in most), tweaked many for brevity, and removed many trailing elaborations in definitions. We can throw in lots of little prescriptive nuggets but it's beyond the scope of a glossary. I also removed all the boldface, it breaks the flow of the text and is frowned upon. Most places where boldface was used, quotes or italics can be substituted.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with your tweaks, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and it's better if someone looks at the style I use then augments it accordingly. With regard to the use of colour names to describe pool balls, that's pretty common in the UK, and is perhaps an artefact of our 8-ball game being based on sets of colours, i.e. reds and yellows. I don't have much exposure to American terminology but we do also use the number names, so I'll have a look at all those and make the appropriate changes. Another reason I used the colour names as a base was just to simplify the number of entries, instead of going up to fifteen. To be honest, I just didn't think about the multitude of different billiards games that use the "spots and stripes", so you're definitely right, there should be some all-encompassing definition without the need to specify the ball's role in a particular game.

We do also commonly call games 8-ball pool, 9-ball pool, etc., probably mainly for disambiguation from the actual ball name that is the crux of the game. I was obviously aware that combinations can be played in 9-ball as long as the correct ball is hit first, perhaps those definitions talking about "sequences" should elaborate a little - as I'm sure you will have inferred I meant the sequence during a run of straight pots - it's a bit complicated to talk about all possible routes to the 9-ball.

A message I was going to send you was one on the matter of an appropriate amount of content for a glossary. I deliberately put loads in and was then going to discuss how we might pare the definitions down, and perhaps some of the more wishy-washy entries - it's just better to start with too much.

In a nutshell, there is clearly a considerable linguistic dichotomy between our two landmasses, and it will simply take a bit of time to muddle through it all so that we can get some sort of union on the page. I don't mean to mess up the flow of it, I just wanted to introduce a bit of our terminology and any changes you make to what I enter are fine with me. It's impossible from my perspective to tell what is exclusively UK, there are also many, many terms that are exclusively US but don't mention that because they were written by Americans. It's up to us to let each other know I guess. Cheers, Kris 10:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. We could implement a defining system for those entries which are specific to particular regions—possibly something along the lines of a legend at the top of the article with a note, and each non-universal entry could get a country code in parenthesese ((US), (UK), etc.). Many are already defined as either one or the other--admittedly, more have been classified by me as UK only, but mainly that is an artifact of that I am on the outside looking in; I can easily tell which are not used here but can't know which aren't, although I also changed some which you thought were UK specific to show that they are used here.

The big problem though is that that Canada uses both some US expressions that no Brit would ever, and also some UK expressions that no American would ever. Probably the same for Australia and New Zealand so such a legend could be seen as very biased.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a nice idea, the way I see it is you're US and I'm UK, so all we can do is start off by establishing which terms are used in our respective countries. There will be an inherent bias in this but that's unavoidable at this stage, short of doing a lot of research (which, in my case, would probably only ever extend to renting out the film "Stickmen", a low-budget Aussie film). If another cue sports nut from Australia or Canada is able to contribute then all the better, they can continue along the lines we started in. Some of the bias could be removed, at least from the point of view of offending non-US/UK players, if some sort of note at the top was introduced explaining this, if that's within Wikipedia etiquette. Kris 13:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How to join

Copy the wikiprojectsnooker box, and paste it into you page. Then you should edit the page and add the name

Userbox

It just fixed your {{user cool}} box, I couldn't see anything wrong with the edit.--Andeh 15:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what went wrong myself, ostensibly the edit is fine when you look at the history etc. It was brought to my attention by the unnecessary change of a perfectly normal Userbox to a message stating something along the lines of "Template: something bad has happened". If you watch Futurama you'll find that hilarious; if you don't you still may find it vaguely funny. If you don't find it funny at all you need to get laid, or perhaps you've simply grown up.

I am very aware of your obvious Wikiprowess and would appreciate similar respect, because I'm no mug either. I suspect there's something slightly odd regarding your Bot though — I'd proffer a contribution if I felt it would make a difference, but it won't. Probably a little "loophole" in the whole phenomenon relating to German Userboxes. In any case, it's over now, I'm happy with the state of my Userpage as it stands.

For the record, I'm not cooler than the average Wikipedian, God no...it's ironic. Good luck with getting administration status, I feel our mutual guided electron flow has meant something today. Kris 17:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Earth vs. "the earth"

Hiya Kris! Regarding "E"arth vs. "e"arth, isn't a good guideline, if it is preceeded by "the", it means Earth as a common noun, in the general, planetary sense, not requiring capitalization (e.g., "but the earth's composition" = "but the planet's composition"), whereas "Earth's..." refers to Earth as a proper noun? I've found a good way to decide is replace "Earth" with either "Mars" or "Venus": Would you say "but the Mars' composition" or "but the Venus' composition"? No, you would say either "but Mars' composition" or "but the planet Venus' composition"——right? P=) ~Kaimbridge~ 14:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kaimbridge, are you ready for a headache? As I understood it you can spell the name of our planet the Earth, Earth, the earth, or earth — I was just changing it all to the most common variant already in use in the article to tidy up the various alternative forms that were littered throughout. If there's a difference when you put "the" in front, then all the occurrences that already said "the Earth", of which there were quite a few when I made the edit, would need to be changed. Alternatively, at the top of the article, the two lowercase variants can be added in the brackets along with "the Earth" so that all bases are covered, and people will accept that just the capitalized variants have been employed for continuity. I personally prefer to use the capitalized variants (putting "the" in front or not depending upon my mood or obvious appropriate contexts) so as to distinguish the use of the word in reference to our planet, which surely should be a proper noun, from the use of the common nouns and their various definitions (soil, ground, plug wire, etc.). Of course the name of our planet and any of the common noun definitions can be termed absolutely or qualified with a prefixed "the" interchangeably, so I think the distinction is a reasonable one. I now have a headache, dunno about you! If it's something you feel strongly about then please make the distinction between "Earth" and "the earth" as the core variants of the term, I'm not that bothered — I just wanted to try and introduce a bit of fluency to the article, and if you change all the terms consistently I'm totally happy with that. Kris 18:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Id just like to drop in a quick thanks for giving me th barnstar =D -- Nbound 16:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Snooker: End of Frame

Hi, What aspect of the above needed revising? I have reverted the last edit (not done by you by done on your prompting!, which only made a tricky enough section even more complicated. My wording was succinct, as opposed to a detailed explanation of every contingency bigpad 08:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just thought a bit more detail could be added since I've always seen Wikipedia as the pursuit of collaborating as much knowledge as possible. I can see why such elaboration might not be too easy on the reader if you're reading it as a non-author or have no knowledge of the game (which of course many wouldn't when perusing the article). If you only meant to revert the last edit then I'm afraid you took out more than that, it's down to a barer format than when I padded it out. Just a question of finding a balance between being laconic and informative I guess. By "editing properly" I was referring more to a tinkering with the grammar/spelling of editors who had added to this section since you did, because some of it was a bit crap if you look at what I changed. Didn't mean to cause any offence. Kris 10:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kris, no offence taken or suggested! As you say, striking the balance between the casual browser and subject expert can be difficult. Maybe it wouldn't hurt to expand things a little, e.g. "A concession, when one player gives up due to being too far behind to have a realistic chance of winning the frame [without extra points from a large number of snookers]"

Something brief along these lines for the various scenarios might be ok. The only concern is that article is a little "dense" already and not that easy to follow. So we want to avoid making it any more like a Civil Service document. I keep an eye on it to try and cut down on unnecessary tinkering but it's always good to have additional feedback. All the best, Patrick

No problems Patrick, I think the section says all it really needs to now as per this discussion – I made a couple of tweaks but nothing too pedantic I hope, feel free to change further. Cheers, Kris 12:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

BOT edit

It just fixed your astronomy userbox, see WP:GUS for why the userbox was moved, I can't see how your user page was disrupted in anyway.--Andeh 12:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject IPA

I don't think that this exists; if you make the proposal and there is a current project (or previous rejection), it's likely that someone will tell you about it. --ais523 13:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Unicode symbols on zodiac articles

(Re: WP:NCH) No, don't delete these; they'll show up correctly on some browsers, but other browsers won't have the correct fonts installed to be able to show them. I suggest that you should probably put the symbols back (you can copy them from the page history). Try looking at Wikipedia:Unicode for more information. --ais523 10:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've reverted those deletions. Perhaps the Unicode symbols are unnecessary though? I imagine a lot of people get confused by that. Kris 10:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting point. If you're using Internet Explorer, compare "ʁɹʈ" to "ʁɹʈ"; these are the same symbols, apart from the font. (Most other browsers can render both correctly; IE only gets the second right.) It might be interesting if it were possible to find a workaround in a similar manner, I wonder if "Unicode ɪ ♍" works (checks Preview...) yes, the same workaround works. I'll create a template that can be used to avoid confusing people based on the IPA workaround used above. --ais523 10:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

(section removed due to problems with transcluding a template with a speedy-tag on --ais523 12:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

Sorry, I just found {{Unicode|Unicode ɪ}} which has the same effect: Unicode ɪ, so I suggest using that one instead and I'll delete my accidental fork. --ais523 10:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers that's excellent, the Unicode template works fine I'll update the articles accordingly. Thanks for your help. Kris 11:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Cuegloss "process"

I've been trying to instill some procedure into Glossary of cue sports terms. We're kind of getting to the point where this article needs to be sourced to hell-and-back or it'll become an AfD target, and we're also getting to the point where more than just two editors are interested in it. I'd like to suggest that henceforth new additions (and deletions, and major entry re-writes) be proposed in the relevant "proposals" talk sections. I'm committing to using them myself. While I think for the short term it's going to be three to five editors paying any attention at all, it's still a good start toward establishing some form of process to avoid later accusations along the lines of WP:OWN, a concern I've had for some time now (based on some really nasty AfD action I've observed starting around last Nov.) Disclaimer: I also have some nitpicks about your latest round of additions, and would rather have talked them out, and would rather now talk them out, than go in and do a bossy revert, which even a month ago I probably would have. >;-) The point being, I think the profile has very recently become high enough with that article that some slower consensus-seeking vs. faster WP:BOLD wikihaviour is probably called for now. Thoughts? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: A radically different way of putting this is also that about once every couple of months we get a noob come in and add/change/delete stuff like mad, and I think part of this is because there's little evidence of any process on the talk page, and a big pile of "do what thou willt" evidence to the contrary. That needs to change or things are going get really messy-like next time this happens. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Snooker request

As a member of WikiProject Snooker, it is requested that you watchlist at least the following pages:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker - if the project members do not pay attention to changes at the project page, especially its talk page, effective collaboration will be nearly impossible and the project would eventually fail.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker/Wanted snooker bios - this is an important part of the project's to-do list.
• Snooker - our main article, frequently subject to vandalism and nonsense edits that (historically) have sometimes taken hours or even an entire day to be fixed
• Snooker season 2006/2007 - another important article
• Snooker world rankings 2006/2007 - another important article
• One or more player articles of your choice that you'd like to "adopt" as a guardian against vandalism, PoV-pushing, etc.

Keeping in touch with the rest of the team via the project pages, and keeping an occasional eye on core articles will go a long way to strengthening the project and protecting the articles. Thank you for your time and attention. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Leeds meetup

Hello! I don't know if you're aware but there is a wikimedia meet up in Leeds this Saturday (14 June) if you're interested. Hopefully you can make it. Regards IJA (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)