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.

2008–2010

"Pot" never defined

Resolved

– Text clarified.

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)

The text, in the lead section no less, has long since been clarified to fix this problem. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Lists

Resolved

– compromise arrived at.

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)

[outdent] 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)

Lead image & Size

Resolved

– Lead and its image have been stable for a long time.

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)

Merge in "List of snooker equipment"

Resolved

– Merge completed.

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)

Largest break to lose

Resolved

– Just chat. Wikipedia talk pages are for article improvement, and are not general chat boards.

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)

Sinuca

Resolved

– Sourced article created.

Anyone got info on the Brazilian variant, sinuca? I don't read Portuguese... Deserves an article, though. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have heard of that, but can't remember quite where on the web I found it. I will try to look it up for you and write an article.

--HandGrenadePins (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done the article, but it would help to get someone who speaks Spanish to help with making it larger, as at the moment it is little more than a stub, or start-class.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese, not Spanish, or I could help myself. :-) I have run the stub through my usual scrubbers, and it is pretty good, but it needs a more authoritative source for the rules; the source in question didn't even spell "Brasileira" correctly, so one wonders what else they got wrong... Anyway, I think it's fine as a well-developed stub. With an illustration showing the table layout, I'd probably even call it a B-class article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose that Sinuca Brasileira be moved to a pool/pocket billiards page as it is not played on a snooker table but on what looks like a 9-ball table (judging by a video on Youtube). To say that it's a variant of snooker is true to a degree but only inasmuch as it uses the same colours. Thoughts? bigpad (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Why merge it at all? It's sufficiently different from both pool and snooker to warrant its article, I'd have thought. Ged UK 09:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was that, while Sinuca Brasileira should def. have its own article, it shouldn't appear in the list of variants on the snooker page. Had another look at the table; it has snooker-type pockets but not the symmetrical dimensions of a snooker table. bigpad (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It should perhaps be under a 'see also', rather than a varient, if you think it's sufficiently different. Ged UK 10:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Extended Spider?

Resolved

– Fixed.

The part of the article saying that the Extended spider is used for bridging over balls is incorrect. Balls can be bridged over using an adjusted bridge hand. The Spider is used for shots which cannot be reached by the hand and are in front of a ball etc. An extended spider is ONLY used when the cue ball is impossible to reach with the normal hand, or the spider. I.e, it is in front of a ball and about 8 foot or more down the table. A swan's neck is used for a shot far away from the player, with several balls in the way.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the link you want is swan's neck. I have fixed the spider error in the article text. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Merging list of snooker equipment

Resolved

– Merge completed.

There hasn't been a lot of discussion about merging List of snooker equipment with the main snooker article. I think the merge would be beneficial to the snooker article, and you could always have

at the top of the section as has been done a few times throughout the article. So I am defintely for the merge. Samasnookerfan (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Same here, and no need to keep a separate list unless/until such time that the snooker article is too large and must be split further. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. Ged UK (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Resolved

– Nomination failed.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Snooker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Initial Comment

I am reviewing this article now. MarquisCostello (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Review Comments

I thought I'd review this article as it had been sitting on the nominations page for around a month...As far as i can see, a very in-depth article with full coverage of the game and some of the background to the sport. Some points:

1. The link in note 26 does not appear to work. The page may be outdated on the WPBSA website.

2. Writing style is good- balanced and objective.

3. Maybe a mention of the role of former players in commentating (e.g. for the BBC) might be beneficial?

4. 'If they do pot at least one red, then it remains in the pocket and they are allowed another shot - this time the aim being to pot one of the colours.'

I might consider re-wording this bit slightly, possibly '...at least one red, then these potted reds are removed from the table...'. I believe this would clarify a little more what this phrase means.

5. Are there any books on the sport that could be referenced here? I could only see one in the notes section. Maybe a couple more would give some more variation on where further information could be obtained.

6. I like the variety of images, but perhaps a picture of one of the harder to imagine rests [maybe the hook rests] could be inserted, perhaps at the expense of the picture of the game of snooker on the half size table at the beginning?

7. 'It is commonly accepted that snooker originated in the latter half of the 19th century.'

The reference provided at the end of this sentence makes use of an online article, but where is the evidence for this fact being 'commonly accepted'?

8. A reference supporting the stated size of the full-size table in the introduction would be beneficial.

I will put the article on hold while you consider these changes. MarquisCostello (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Give me a few days. I am quite busy this week but I will try to solve these. Nergaal (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, drop me a message on my talk page when you're done. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been a couple weeks now. Either the writer should start working or the reviewer should fail it at this point. Wizardman 16:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have left a message on Nergaal's talkpage. I will fail it if no progress is made in the next two days.MarquisCostello (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Due to a lack of progress by editors, this article has been failed for now. MarquisCostello (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of the article

Resolved

– Do not feed the trolls.

So really, it's just a special kind of pool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.135.164 (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think pool is a special kind of snooker. Ged UK 14:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It was originally called "snooker pool", at least in the U.S., but then there are many different kinds of pool or billiards. American eight-ball is just one of them and so, in fairness, is snooker. Hakluyt bean (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Snooker in London 2012 Olympic game ?

Resolved

– WP:NOT#FORUM.

Would you like to have snooker in London 2012 Olympic game ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lau Tak-man (talk • contribs) 19:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. This isn't a forum for discussing the game, but for discussing the article. Thanks. --Ged UK (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Miss" rule?

Resolved

– No issue exists here.

Surprised there is no mention of the controversial "Miss" rule in this article. 86.149.199.220 (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You can find it at Snooker rules. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)