Jump to content

Talk:Glossary of cue sports terms

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.246.23.7 (talk) at 16:05, 22 December 2016 (→‎broken). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Formatting standardization

This section is for ===Proposals=== for uniform formatting conventions in the glossary.

Verb/noun usage consistency

I was reviewing a recent edit for stake, and its clumsiness (this entry needs changing) got me to thinking... there's a lot of verb/noun usage obfuscation in this glossary. We need to standardize it. Do we use the "Spot (noun)... Spot (verb)" separate entry format, or the format used under one title, separated into verb and noun as per individual sense, such as in shark? I noticed a verb/noun dichotomy for at least these following entries: duck; fish; hustle; kick; pocket; pot; rack; run out; shark; snooker; spot; stake; string. Some sort of organization is required. Kris 23:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May be a complicated question. I think in general these should be collapsed into a single prose entry that explains verb vs. noun usage (see the revised "Stake", as it stands as of this writing). In other cases, the meanings are disparate enough that separate entries are needed, but I think that the " (verb)" labelling not-quite-conventions implies (wrongly) that all entries should have a verb/noun/adjective/whatever split. Something else is needed in the parentheses, perhaps. E.g. "Rack (object)" (for the wooden thing), "Rack (formation)" (for "a proper nine-ball rack"), "Rack (game)" (for "ran ten racks"), "Rack (action)" (for "rack the balls"). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Over a month later, I'm not sure I like my own suggestion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple senses and Cuegloss linking

The above noun/verb consistency issue actually raises a larger one: It is getting unwieldy and is probably a disservice to readers to link to thinks like "Break" and "Rack" and "Colour ball", that have multiple disparate senses. We need a consistent way of being able to link to specific senses. I thought about doing this with <span id="something"> for each sense, but this would in jump to that sense without the term's heading even being visible, which would be a major usability problem. I'm leaning toward the idea that each major/very disparate sense needs its own heading, while related senses should be collapsed into one entry.

Illustrative quotoids

All of the pretend-quotes used to illustrate various usages should eventually be replaced with actual sourced quotations. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lower case lead characters

I think we should WP:IAR on the general WP:MOS advice to begin all list items with upper-case characters, and use lower case. This would make it easier for people to understand that things like "english" and "scotch doubles" are not capitalized, without us having to explain it in detail, and it would also allow me change how {{Cuegloss}} works such that to link to Glossary of cue sports terms#jump shot all that would be required is {{Cuegloss|jump shot}}, instead of {{Cuegloss|jump shot|jump shot}}. This would require a big AWB session to clean up all extant links to entries here from articles, but I can handle that. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuegloss entries for discussion

This section is for ===Proposals=== for addition, deletion or overhaul of entries in the glossary. See Talk:Glossary of cue sports terms/Archive 1 for old proposals. It is not necessary to prose an addition or correction here if it is sourced, nor to propose minor changes – just go do it. This is not an official Wikipedia process; rather it is simply intended to a) prevent editwarring over potentially questionable additions, b) reduce the frequency of unsourced additions, and c) obtain feedback on whether an entry is notable enough to be added and to be worth sourcing, which should be done before it is added.
IMPORTANT: Update extant links if entry renamed!
It is very important that if you change an existing entry's name that you update any links to it that are already in articles. These can be found by searching for "{{Cuegloss|ORIGINAL TERM", and "[[Glossary of cue sports terms#ORIGINAL TERM".

Carom, carambole

Latest round of changes: All really good stuff. Only one concern from my quarter: I think we've lost some clarity on carom/carambole, because there are two senses (I know of) in this field for the word, (caroming c.b. off an o.b., as in "carom angle", and caroming c.b. off an o.b. to strike another ball), and possibly a third (to score a point in a carom billiards game, though I think that might have been a confusion with "billiard", sense #something). The dictionary.com definition, of the word as used in English generally, seems to be to broad. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold!--Fuhghettaboutit
Well, in this case, my version of being bold would be to simply revert it to what it originally said. I assume there was a rationale for the changes you made that I'm not grokking, which is why I brought it up here. I figure we can come to a compromise version. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like Heinlein but I'm not grokking your response. The definition was unsourced, bare-bones, there was no entry for carombole and it had a dubious tag. Add in those definitions you think are missing, but remember that the ultimate goal, as with all articles, is to source each and every entry. Right now we're still loosely adding and tweaking based mostly on our specialized knowledge. Do you seriously believe the prior entry has not been vastly improved? That I don't get.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go look again; maybe I was sleepy or something. ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved: Forgot to do anything about this, if anything needs to be done. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cling

The article states that "cling" or "kick" shots are caused by residual chalk. They happen far more often on TV than in a club environment leaving scientists to suggest that the lighting might have something to do with it. This includes tests where players have played an entire frame without using chalk, and still seeing kicks. The article is clear about the causes while the cause is not clear! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.52.103 (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fluke

Does a fluke have to have a positive outcome? In snooker a fluke can cost you a frame, and will often still be referred to as a fluke. For example, if you are 34 points behind with one red on, and you accidentally pot it, you may not be on a colour that offers enough points to still be able to win without snookers.--MartinUK (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is certainly important. More simply, a fluke can also include the cue ball potting, or a ball potting when the player intends a snooker.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frame-winner

A successful attempt at potting the frame ball (chiefly in snooker).

P.S.: See Talk:Stephen Hendry; the article there uses the phrasing "deciding frame" instead, and it did generate some confusion (i.e. a Cuegloss entry and link to it would be warranted). Because this terminology takes multiple forms, I think it would be better to explain these usages briefly under frame, game, etc., rather than attempt to create new entries for every possible usage of this sort (which could be many - "frame-ender", "match-sealing shot", etc., etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • I agree it's an obvious compound noun, but it is an exceptionally common term in BBC snooker commentary. This may, of course, just be because of the general vocabulary engendered by snooker commentators as a result of their being a close-knit group, but this in turn influences most of the players I know to adopt the terminology, and presumably such subsequent proliferation occurs everywhere. I have no strong inclination for its inclusion, however, and acknowledge its dubiety. Kris 09:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't dispute its usage, I'm hard pressed to see how to really add this, though, because of the variety of usage. Either we'd need a bunch of near-identical entries for "frame-winner", "game-winner", "match-winner", "frame-ender", ... "frame-stealer" ... "frame-decider", etc., etc., or a near-identical explanatory note about such usages added to #Frame, #Game, #Round, and #Match. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah you're probably right. In my initial proposed definition I omitted to describe the broader sense of usage for the term, in being a key shot in a frame that sets up a taken frame-winning chance, like perhaps developing an awkward ball – not necessarily potting the frame ball. But all the same, several descriptive synonyms potentially exist. I think frame-winner might be the most commonly quoted, certainly in snooker commentary, but no biggie if it's left out. Kris 21:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A defn. that narrow that might be good after all, with "Frame-winner" or "Frame-winning" being the heading, and maybe a few variants in Also... (if you think they might likely be sourceable; we really do need to start sourcing more of these things...) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not being funny, but how would you go about sourcing something you consistently hear in TV commentary? Just stating the specific show isn't good enough, because as far as the third person is concerned, it could be an isolated use of improvised language. The majority of idiomatic speech in cue sports is too current and undocumented in official, sourceable literature. I fully appreciate the need for proper referencing, since I am involved in the production of primary literature with my PhD, but it presents a problem to me where this sort of thing is concerned with cue sports vernacular. I'm not questioning the importance of it, I'd just like some boundaries of acceptability set in this regard, which would have to be looser than, say, a published paper or a textbook. Kris 23:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Cite episode can be used to source such things. I've taken extensive notes from several recent broadcasts and will be integrating such sourcing as time permits. I think it is a bit of a judgement call; I do not think that some random term, like "game-clincher" should be added to this glossary just because it can be sourced in this way that some random announcer used that phrase, once. Rather, I think we need to rely on our experience to pre-identify notable terms that are actually in real-word use, and then we can use properly cited sport commentator usage as evidence that it is not "original research" (though of course print sources are preferable). I feel that the thought process mirrors the horse-before-the-cart processes of article writing in general: The community as a whole eschews creating articles for presumptively non-notable subjects and then trying desperately to demonstrate notability after the article has been slapped with a speedy deletion or WP:AfD tag; rather, we try to identify actually a notable topic, gather material and write a good article about it, or at least a sourced stub that immediately establishes the notability of the subject. All that said, it seems like "frame-winner" or "frame-winning" could be notable enough for this treatment, if you're certain that this phrase is used way more than other, similar phrases. I guess it wouldn't be too awkward to note that the format of the term is sometimes altered for "colour" ("frame-taker", etc.), or used in broader contexts ("match-winner"), without having to go and add separate entries for each. If this were Wiktionary we would add separate entries for each, but as a big debate on the talk page expounds, we're not on Wiktionary. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Lag" section too longwinded

And the entry for "lag" is way too big for a glossary. Kris 00:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose moving the bulk of it to Cue sports techniques, an article that can serve us well for many purposes if we start broadening it beyond english/draw/follow/massé/jump. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved: No one's done anything about it yet. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nestle

(Of a ball) roll up into close proximity of another ball.

  • Can you use it in a snooker way that isn't obvious from the general meaning of the word? Is it used as a noun, like "Hendry's challeging nestle"? As an intransitive verb, like "Since Davis is nestled, he'll have to shoot away from the yellow"? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most common, and cue-sport specific, usage for this term that I'm aware of is when describing a containing safety in which a player rolls the cue ball onto another ball (or, usually, the pack) to leave things safe. He plays to nestle the ball onto something. We could maybe work it like that if it were to be included – definitely a common commentary reference anyway. Kris 21:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that could work, particular with the "on" rather than "against" idiom; in fact "Nestle on" might be proper entry heading.
PS: Please tell me you're aware that {{Cuegloss|Pack|pack}} = [[Glossary of cue sports terms#Pack|pack]]! Major time saver. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably the {{tlx|Cuegloss|Term|term}} template accounts for more unseen internal repercussions than the [[Glossary of cue sports terms#Term|term]] link does then... sorry, as I have explained to you before, I haven't taken much interest in the clever programming side of Wikipedia. Send a tutorial to my talk page, or refer me to an existing page of this nature, describing the importance of the template and when its usage is appropriate, and I'll try to remember to adhere. I don't want to make anyone's life harder than it needs to be. "Nestle on" would be a good entry, yeah. Kris 23:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just meant that if you use that template, you don't have to keep tying out "Glossary of cue sports terms..." Nothing much in the way of a tutorial; you just put {{Cuegloss|GlossarySection|Text}} Where GlossarySection is something like "Ball-in-hand" - the exact name of the glossary entry - and Text is the text in the article being linked from, such as "ball-in-hand", e.g. "fouls lead to ball-in-hand for the opponent." The template actually does make maintenance easier, by giving us a simple string to search for. I convert references to the glossary that do not use this template into ones that do use the template, for this reason. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the snap, on the break

On the snap and on the break are not synonymous at all. The first is a very common expression, "wow, he made it on the snap" or "come on baby, on the snap!". "On the break" is just a sentence fragment; never heard is used as an expression at all. See TIEOB entry forsnap, page 217, for sourcing. In fact there's a pool league website named after the expression: http://www.onthesnap.com/--Fuhghettaboutit 13:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Not so sure. Your first example is "just a sentence fragment", and precisely synonymous with "on the break" as commonly used. I would concur that just by itself "On the snap!" is a special interjectory usage. (I would theorize that TCoM actually invented that usage, and that it is in real use today only because of the memetic power of the movie. I actually have heard "Yeah! On the break!" (after the fact) at league matches, but I'll concede that it's rather rare (mostly it'll just be hoots and hollers, frankly. >;-)
Proposal: Fork the definition into two entries, one for O.t.b. almost as-is, and have the O.t.s. one have two senses:
  1. By itself (or prefaced by "Do it", etc.), an interjection exhorting the shooter to pocket the money ball, on the break[1]
  2. As a general phrase, same as on the break.
That code's just copy-pastable after removal of the leading :'s. If you're agreeable. All that would be needed beyond that would be a See also xref from O.t.b. to O.t.s. I think all the xrefs currently in the Glossary can continue to point at O.t.b., since none of them are about interjectory usage. Howzat? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure "on the break" has any traction as an expression and should probably be removed entirely. On the snap is constantly used. What I meant by sentence fragment is that, whereas on the snap is a saying, the other appears to be just a statement, i.e, "he made the nine ball 'on the break,'" and not a defined phrase. I have never heard it used alone. If someone made the nine on the break and screamed "on the break!" I think most people would know what the person meant but would cock their heads in puzzlement at the unfamiliar expression. By contrast, on the snap, just those three words, has a set meaning every pool bum knowns.
You may be right that The Color of Money popularized the expression, but so what? That's how language works. Whatever its origin, it has: a pool league named after it as noted above; a video using it in context[7], a magazine named after it On the Snap Magazine (see halfway down the page) as well as an ezine [8]; a pool room named after it [9], two billiard supply warehouses named after it [10], [11]; multiple mentions in books on the sport [12] and so on. 15,300 google hits for a targeted search [13], most using it as an expression. While the same search with on the break returns huge results [14], look at those results. Not one I see in the first few pages of links is using it as an expression, but just as part of a sentence. Finally, TIEOB has no mention of on the break but defines on the snap as I noted in my earlier post; so too does the glossary at [spam removed]. So I ask you: Can you find any source using on the break as a defined expression?--Fuhghettaboutit 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; I can ramble myself, and then some. My counter-arguments, to the extent I want to make any at all, are a) I actually incredibly rarely hear "on the snap" (in my crowd, if you said that people would laugh and tell you to quit watching Paul Newman movies so much); I do concede that it is in actual use as an interjection, and that it certainly predates TCoM. b) As noted earlier, I can anecdotally confirm that "on the break" is actually used the same way, at least after the fact. I've been on something like a dozen league teams in 5 or 6 different leagues in three major cities, and all of them have their own quirks; but ejaculatory comments like "YES! On the break!" at the advent of an 8 ball break I have heard in more than one of these leagues; again it's not overwhelmingly common, but not nonexistent either. c) I wasn't meaning to imply that it was somehow invalid just because popularized by TCoM; just saying it was, for the hell of it. d) I don't have any citable sources for usage of "on the break" as an interjection, which is why I suggested the entry be forked into one (single) entry for OtB, and a (dual) entry for OtS, with only OtS mentioning the interjectory/exhortatory usage. d) All that said, I can live with removal of OtB entirely, though would keep all the xrefs to it, and just change them to refer to OtS, just for kicks (no pun intended). e) That said, I'd prefer to keep OtB, because it is a term of art; we do not say "as a result of the break shot", we say "on the break", which without definition is potentially confusing. So, in conclusion, f) I prefer my suggestion above (with the sample code) but won't cry like a baby or anything if you disagree, and won't revert whatever edit you prefer. :-) PS: g) If this is the only one of the zillion edits of mine in the last several days that's raised any hackles, I'm both pleasantly surprised and (probably) relieved (I say "probably" because it's possible that the silence doesn't equal assent but simply a delay in noticing what I mangled. Heh.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes/no/maybe? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ping? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lost this thread, just rediscovered. I am continuing with sourcing (and hope to have a surce for every definition soon). Added back in on the snap with addiitonal sources. Can't find any sources for on the break as a defined expression. If found, let's add it in as a separate definition.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved: Still nothing done with "on the break" one way or another, despite the frequency with which this phrased is used in our articles.
I lean toward continuing to just do "...if pocketed on the break" in articles; any objections? I felt strongly several months ago that "on the break" should have an entry, but have now reversed my thoughts on this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of commission

A term applied to a ball that is safe, used especially in snooker to describe the position of a colour ball that would otherwise be useful to have on its spot.

It's a navy term, the more formal term for a ship being mothballed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Professional foul

The term "professional foul" as used at Miss (snooker rule) (which may merge into Snooker rules) should be added here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I introduced the term on the miss page, as a generic term describing how any experienced player of a sport sometimes deliberately risks accepting a penalty for longer-term gain. It is also common in sports such as soccer, for example, where a defender may deliberately get sent off by fouling a player clean through on goal if that's the only way he can prevent the score. In cue sports circles I have heard the term used most commonly in UK 8-ball, where such shots are legal and commonly played in the world rules format, but like for the concerns regarding doubles and Scotch doubles, it's probably not specific enough to cue sports. Kris 09:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point of contact

Common term. Should have a "Contact point" cross-reference. Term is used at Cling, probably others.

Profile

The cushion profile, e.g. K-66. Don't have a proposed definition written out, just think it needs to be added in some form; see usage at Billiards table#Cushions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›

Unresolved: No opposition, but no definition yet. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant "diff. parts of speech" entries

This entry was refactored into being an entry unto itself; formerly a postscript to another entry.

On the other hand I would remove redundant "additional parts of speech" entries, including "Be in stroke", "Catch a stroke" ("catch" is an interesting enough idiom it's worth briefly mentioning under "Stroke"), "Having the cue ball on a string" (move it to "On a string"; {{Cuegloss|Having the cue ball on a string|on a string}} is way too long), "Stroke, catch a" (redundant, esp. after "catch" mentioned in "Stroke". Also, we should probably just merge "On the lemonade" and "Lemonade stroke" into a single "Lemonade" entry; I thought about doing that months ago, and feel even more strongly about it now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like "on a string" and certainly "be" can come out of "be in stroke" but "in stroke" and catch or caught a stroke are really common independent expressions and usages. Nevertheless, at least stroke, as that word is defined in billiards usage, is central to these expressions. No such relationship is true of lemonade, which has no relationship with pool except by its use in the two stock expressions "on the lemon/ade" and "lemonade stroke." I would analogize it to combining dictionary entries for "cat's meow" and "cat bird seat" into an entry for "cat", which would make no sense at all.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved: Nothing's been done about the ones to be renamed; discussion stalled, so consensus on lemon entries is in limbo. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've sat on this one for many months, and am still skeptical on the lemonade entries; they are clearly directly related, and I do actually think both of the cat expressions you mention should be at Cat#In expressions or a List of expressions mentioning cats or something to that effect. They aren't notable topics in and of themselves (though "catbird seat" would also be covered in the article about the notable story the phrase originated in). Not a huge deal. But I'm not sure I lean toward my former position either. Just, basically, renewing the idea that this one is unresolved, so it doesn't get archived without closure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 10:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse english, reverse side

The current definition for reverse english is not exactly what I understood it to be. It implies that it is the same as check side in that the angle of reflection is made narrower, however this is not the case in the sense I use. In Britain it is called reverse side but it must mean the same thing: say for example I wanted to deeply screw the cue ball off a straight pot so that it rebounded a rail and the natural angle of reflection wasn't wide enough, I could use reverse side to widen the angle. I would have to impart right-hand side to throw the cue ball wider left off the rail, and vice versa, hence the reverse element of the term. If there is a difference in the use of the term either side of the pond then I suggest reverse side should be given its own definition distinct from reverse english, and check side be cross-referenced accordingly. Kris 11:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First the definition appears incorrect in that it says "If angling into a rail that is on the right, then reverse english would be right english, and vice versa." The english in that example, should be left. In The illustrated Encyclopedia of billiards, reverse english is defined as: Spin causing the cue ball to come off a cushion at a more obtuse angle and at a slower speed thatn a ball hit without english...spin that tends to make a ball move in the direction contrary to its natural motion...if a ball strikes a cushion at an angle between zero and 90 degrees (measured from the direction to the left of the contact point), then left english is reverse english." Here's the clarity I hink you're looking for: it also says "...also known as check side..." Does that help?--Fuhghettaboutit 13:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that makes more sense, so perhaps the terms are distinct – I propose the definitions be changed as follows (with internal links):
===Check side===
''Same as reverse english.
===Reverse english===
Spin causing the cue ball to come off a cushion at a more obtuse angle and at a slower speed than a ball hit without english, i.e. spin that tends to make a ball move in the direction contrary to its natural motion. If a ball strikes a cushion at an angle between 0 and 90 degrees (measured from the direction to the left of the contact point), then left english is reverse english<ref>Illustrated Encyclopedia of billiards...</ref>.
===Reverse side===
In the UK, sidespin imparted upon the cue ball during a deep screw shot that has the effect of shallowing its angle of reflection off the cushion in the opposite direction. For example, in snooker, a straight black potted off the spot from the left side of the table with screw and right-hand side, so that the cue ball is thrown wider left and up towards the blue.
Does that sort it out? That seems OK from my UK perspective, hope it makes sense to US players. Kris 14:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved: Discussion stalled, so consensus is in limbo. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to restart this discussion. I have many times questioned the use of the term "reverse side" by commentators of snooker. They use it to refer to the application of side for the opposite purpose to that described in this article, ie to refer to the shot mentioned above: "... thrown wider left and up towards the blue." Although this contradicts the given definition, and can also be argued to be illogical (there's nothing "reverse" about it), I believe some mention should be made of the alternative usage as it is very common in snooker commentary - indeed it is The way that the "...towards the blue" style of shot is described. Jordantrew (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Squeeze shot, throw shot

Squeeze shot badly needs to be re-explained more clearly and methodically, and moved to "Throw shot", a term that can be documented in Byrne. Never seen "squeeze shot"; will be hard to source. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tickie-tick

I was watching a 9-ball match today and heard a couple of American commentators use the term "tickie-tick" to describe a shot much like "tickie" already in the glossary. They even discussed where they thought the name came from but didn't know. They were describing a kick/carom whereby the cue ball hits one rail, bounces off the 1 ball, potting the 3 ball over the corner. Is there a subtle difference here, adding the "tick" in the case of potting a ball instead of just rebounding back to the last rail? Kris 17:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the "tick" at the end is just onomatopoeia for the contact with the three ball. "Tickie-tick" should probably be added to the glossary as a new entry. What are the details of the show (incl. the commentators if possible), so we can use that as the source citation? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers SMcCandlish, I appreciate the onomatopoeic properties of the term, as well as its assonant and alliterative qualities (I appreciate that perhaps my sarcasm regarding the commentators' lack of knowledge may have passed unnoticed – but thanks for the extra elucidation, I'm sure many others reading this will appreciate it). The main part of my inquiry was about the potential dichotomy between such a shot resulting in a pot in a 9-ball/American 8-ball game, and just sending the cue ball back to the last rail in a carom game (as specifically stated in the current definition). I assume they're just synonymous then, in which case I would advise editing the definition to be more sensu lato. Korea's WPBA 9-ball Champion Ga-Young Kim edged China's Xiaoting Pan 7-6 in the final of the Carolina Women's Billiard Classic. The event took place from February 21-25 at the Gateway Convention Center, Rocky Mount, North Carolina, USA. This was the first event of the WPBA season. The commentators were "The Striking Viking" Ewa Mataya Laurance and her husband Mitch Laurance. They were clearly working for an American TV channel but it appeared on the UK's own Sky Sports Xtra channel between the hours of 1300-1400 local time (that's GMT) on April 4, 2007. Hope that helps you. Kris 23:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard the phrase (which doesn't mean anything necessarily), but I can tell you that tickie is incredibly common in carom billiards usage, and Mitch Laurence is not a player. Though he is getting better after years of fumbling commentary, he still makes tons of terminology mistakes. When he started he was literally a blank slate. They've been doing this for going on twenty years on ESPN—pairing a well-known professional with not just an amateur, but someone who has no familiarity—I've never understood it. Mitch is just the last in a long series of such ciphers. They had some guy, Kevin Cusack I think, and two others in years past. I guess they figure they will be good at asking basic questions of the professional that people at home might be thinking, that someone already experienced would not. The result, though, has been them having nothing to offer and having to often be corrected. You can sometimes hear Allen Hopkins getting slightly annoyed and restraining himself from correcting too much Anyway, was there a clear definition given? It would need independent attribution otherwise.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the commentary Mitch asked Ewa what it meant, after she first used the term to described the shot. I'd assume she knew what she was talking about. It's probably just like SMcCandlish said – just a bit of onomatopoeia extending an established term. All the same, it was the "Striking Viking" who used the term, a legend of the WPBA, so the reference shouldn't be taken lightly, even if Mitch Laurance is just a charismatic layperson employed as a voice on some low-budget coverage of a low-popularity event. Kris 00:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what the show/event being televised? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it was the final of the Carolina Women's Billiard Classic. The show was just called "Women's Pool" on Sky Sports Xtra, but it was an ESPN show from America they were showing. Kris 12:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now seen it too, and the definition was clear: it's a tickie-to-combo. PS: I recind what I said above about a new entry; it should just be mentioned in the Tickie entry, and sourced to the show and commentator with {{Cite episode}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional and amateur mistake

This seems related to "professional side of the pocket". I removed this from another article's "In popular culture" section, because it was way off-topic there, but these terms could be good additions here, if a source can be found:

Another term widely used amongst informal players of pool is "amatuer mistake." The term relates to the event where the player is set up for an easy shot to pot a ball on the table, but follows the coloured ball into the pocket with the cue ball. The event is described so, due to the event appearing as though the player is very unexperienced and an amatuer of the game.

The reverse-side is called a "professional mistake," where the player missess an easily set up coloured ball and pots the cue ball into the pocket intended for the coloured ball. The term uses sarcasm to be a derogatory statement against the player, as they resemble no sign of a professional player's ability.

This is obviously UK English, and it also brings to mind another discussion further up, about the phrase "professional foul". I would like to combine all of these terms into one entry if possible, but at near-midnight in my time zone, I'm having a hard time thinking of a good entry title and structure. I'm thinking we need an entry for "professional" and "amateur" and several bulleted sub-entries for different usages. Or I may be smokin' crack. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC) [belated sig, about 2 days after originally posted][reply]

Alternating break, winner-breaks

I think these should be covered. The terms are coming up more and more in event articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking ball, also blocker

Very common term; I don't have a proposed definition right this instant, but it should be easy, and easily multi-sourceable. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wire, dfn. 1

I think that Wire, definition 1 is too general-parlance and not billiards-specific enough to be in the glossary. There's even a popular TV show, The Wire named for this form of grapevine (in part; it's also a reference to the wearing of recording equipment for police purposes, wiretapping, and walking a thin line or being under pressure). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three-foul rule

The mention of Irish standard pool there probably needs to be replaced by a reference to blackball, but needs to be sourced to make sure that is correct. I.s.p. is slated for merger with b.b. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straight eight

Resolved
 – Someone made a poor attempt at explaining this here, and it was fixed.

Should this be covered here or at eight-ball? 68.35.40.113 15:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squeeze shot

The original, faulty entry read:

</nowiki>A type of combination that can be played when the second object ball is frozen to the first and lined up at one of the knuckles of the target pocket. It can normally be pocketed by hitting the first object ball on the same side as the knuckle and second object ball at a medium to hard pace. It is a somewhat counterintuitive shot because if there is the slightest gap between the two object balls the only way to pocket the second would be to hit the opposite side. The phenomenon occurs as a result of throw.</nowiki>

This was replaced with a second meaning, sourced, but I think that something legit was being discussed in the original; I'm preserving it here until it can be sourced and better explained. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Push shot

Currently reads:

In the game of snooker, it is considered a push if the cue strikes the cue ball more than once in a given shot (a double hit) or if the cue stick, cue ball and ball-on are all in contact together during a shot (if the cue ball and object ball are frozen together, special dispensation is given provided the cue ball is struck at a downward or otherwise "off" angle; that is, not directly into the line of the two balls)

I'm not game to go and edit it myself, but this does imply that in the game of snooker, special dispensation applies such that you may hit at a downward or somewhat indirect angle... in snooker, you strictly must hit away from a ball the cue ball is frozen to, no matter the circumstance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoimjamie (talk • contribs) 15:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two-pot rule, three-pot rule, all-in, spot-barred

Need entries for the two-pot rule and three-pot rule, which are English billiards terms; they are showing up in articles, with nowhere to link to. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for the E.b. terms all-in and spot-barred; used and discussed a little bit at World Professional Billiards Championship, but not defined, and very likely to be impenetrable to users unfamiliar with the topic. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cradle cannon nurse

Resolved
 – Added.

Mentioned at Tom Reece with nowhere to link. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black spot, etc.

Need entries for the named spots in snooker. They are fairly frequently mentioned in articles, with nowhere to link to other than #Spot. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last-pocket and bank-the-8

Resolved
 – Just an FYI; entries already added.

Eight-ball has long had HTML comment notes requesting entries for these terms here, so I've just created them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See

Duh! How'd we miss this one? The jargonistic usage of "see", as in "he can't quite see the 8 ball", deserves an entry, since it is clearly a jagonistic metaphor and not a literal fact, so it needs explanation. I think I will defer to Fuhghettaboutit, as he has a pile of hustlerish books that probably use this term in context, judging from what he's been able to source so far. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I added this years ago. Either I'm mistaken, or it was deleted. I'll try re-adding it. Ben414 (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Down-trou

I've restored this entry, since it's clearly a real and spreading phenomenon (I've even heard of it on US/Canadian east coast as a college kids thing, when I was out there.) The film is a valid source; sources aren't invalidated because of their medium. I know you think the practice is silly (I agree!), but it's obviously a real phenomenon related to pool (and apparently darts as well). All you need do is Google "downtrou pool -swimming", ' "down-trou" pool -swimming", "pantsed pool -swimming", etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pantsed

There was an entry for this Australian variant, but it has been removed pending sources. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seven-balled

There was an entry for this English variant, but it has been removed pending sources. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grannied

In Scotland "pantsed" is known as "grannied" (as in "my granny could do better"), according to a recent (reverted) edit to Eight-ball. It was further claimed that the Scottish "down-trou" equivalent was for the (male) loser to be made to put their scrotum on the table. That seems a bit far-fetched, given how conservative Scotland is generally, except in downtown Glasgow and Edinburgh. I support the removal of these items absent any sources for them, but note them here for further potential research and sourcing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duck egg?

Resolved
 – Added to glossary, with source.

This source (cited in the glossary for other stuff, as ref name="BDESaw") contains the following phrase: "Daly marked up a duck egg on a kiss from a fine cushion shot in the twelfth inning." In another section it says "Schaefer retired [from his inning] with a duck egg." I have no idea what this means. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Shamos entry for "Blank", page 31. It refers to a scoreless inning and is marked as obsolete (not that that means it shouldn't get an entry necessarily).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added. See blank. Needed it anyway for my rewrite of George Balabushka.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catch-up

Unexplained term "catch-up" ("The two players played straight pool, 1,000-point catch-up at 200 points per block, for five nights.") at Larry Lisciotti. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Unexplained term "block" ("The two players played straight pool, 1,000-point catch-up at 200 points per block, for five nights.") at Larry Lisciotti. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marker (person)

Used at History of English billiards. There are some other occupational/role terms (mostly from straight pool days and earlier) that should probably also be added.

Third ball

Ran across this in one article or another; I can't remember where. It may have been a snooker term, or maybe a term from carom. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum total clearance

Resolved
 – Nothing further on this issue in about 8 months.

It says in the article that the minimum total clearance in snooker is 72. Presumably, 15 reds with yellows, followed the colours in sequence. However, it is theoretically possible to pot all 15 reds on one stroke, then pot the yellow, and then the colours in sequence, making the minimum total clearance 44. Thoughts? Alex Holowczak (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it up at Talk:Snooker, come back with the results? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GENIUS!!! Never thought of that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandGrenadePins (talk • contribs) 11:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll update the text of the section to account for multi-red pots. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese

The "cheese" or "cheese shot" is pocketing the 9 ball early (and legally) in a game of nine-ball, or (by extension) pocketing the money ball in similar manner in nine-ball-related games such as six-ball. E.g., "I took the cheese shot", and "he could have made the 2 clean, but missed because he tried to use it for the cheese and that combo was too hard", or "I love cheese!". I hear this constantly in BCA nine-ball (it is so commonly understood that my team name is Cheesecutters, and everyone gets the silly double-entendre). I do not hear it so far in APA or VNEA nine-ball (other than from also-BCA players), nor have I found any pro or other non-BCA references for it. Nor any official BCA reference for that matter. I'm fairly certain this will eventually be sourceable and should be added, as it is definitely a real term, even if not universal. The 9 ball itself is sometimes also referred to as the cheese or cheese ball (thus my team name; cf. cut), and occasionally it also refers to pocketing the 9 normally, but the term most often applies to winning the game early with a combo, kiss, or carom. My feeling is that the term derives from the yellow of the 9 ball, but that is just a guess and I can't source it yet. I have not encountered "cheesy" used adjectivally except once as a joke ("I'd call that a cheesy shot! Heh.") — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber match, rubber game

Unresolved
 – Sourceable to an extent, but not (yet) in the currently-common sense, nor in "rubber game" form.
This discussion was moved here 00:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC) (and trimmed of irrelevant material) from User talk:SMcCandlish.

What do you think of "rubber match" (= hill-hill)? I think that term was borrowed from baseball, but I'm not sure. I hear it several times per week in APA play, but haven't found any sources yet for its applicability to pool. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's borrowed from boxing. See this and Rubber match. I've heard it used for many years and never knew its origin (I played APA myself many moons ago...). There is some ambiguity though. People use it the same as hill-hill in my experience but, thinking about it now, it really should be rubber "game" even though it isn't. The normal usage in other sports is apparently for a deciding match, and apparently always the third in a best two out of three situation. I was just looking for a source and even found it used in that manner for pool. See here and here, and for snooker, see here. I wasn't able to find a reliable source that uses it in the manner I, and I think you, know it. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shot clock

Pretty obvious addition to make. The term appears in this article itself, as well as at 2005 Premier League Snooker (2004/05) and others. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy rack

Resolved
 – Removed as unsourced probable nonsense; no evidence this is a real term, and we don't include terms like this anyway.

I removed this misplaced and nonencyclopedically written entry from the "Rack (verb)" entry:

  1. A "Jimmy-Rack" is when your opponent purposely racks the billiard (or pool) balls so loosely, that when you break, the balls barely move, thus the opponent trying to “Jimmy-Rack you" to gain an advantage or upset you. The person breaking may observe the rack prior to breaking and call shenanigans, forcing a re-rack. Can also be used as an excuse when the person breaking hits the balls poorly and cries "I got a Jimmy-Rack!".

Aside from being unsourced, it looks very much like something made up by the editor who added it, and if it refers to a real person named Jimmy, it violates Wikpedia policy against personal attacks. Even if this were a real term in the area the editor in question is from, this article and the rest of the world don't care - it would just be a local colloquialism. Here in central New Mexico some people call it a Bernalillo rack. In San Francisco I've heard it called a Mission rack, in Washington, DC, a Beltway rack, and in Toronto, a Quebecker rack, and so on (yes I've moved around a lot). The implication in all such cases is that those after whom the loose rack is named are being caricatured as stupid, lazy/careless, and/or dishonest. Cf. terms like "Welshing on a bet", "Indian giving", "nigger knocking", etc. The first two and last rack slurs I mention are remarkably similar to such terms, being anti-Hispanic slurs in the first two cases and anti-French-Canadian in the last (the third, the DC one, is an occupational slur against lobbyists, lawyers and politicians and those who work for them). Not knowing where the "Jimmy rack" editor is from, I can't even hazard a guess as to what "Jimmy" might refer to, other than to repeat that I suspect it's a direct individual insult against someone that the editor knows personally, and is not an actual regional colloquialism to begin with, not that we'd add it if it were. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 11:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Locally (New York) we call this a slug rack (or "putting the slug in"); I've also heard "cement rack" and these terms have no specter of personal attack involved, but I don't know that they're verifiable or more than local. "Jimmy rack" might or might not have the same derivation as "jimmying a lock" but there's no need to guess. I'll check a few sources. It can't remain since you dispute (and I do as well) unless an inline source is added per WP:BURDEN. On a tangent, since your post at WP:SIZE has gotten no response, maybe that issue should be raised at a more central and far higher traffic place such as WP:VPP?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, nada in anything I've looked at and even a targeted Google web search doesn't find local usage. I was expecting Shamos to have at least "loose rack" with some synonyms, but he has no entry for it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

APA terminology

Here's some APA terms that might be sourceable reliably somewhere. They are commonly seen in APA-dominated Web forums, e.g. http://www.facebook.com/groups/130357857701 (you may need to be logged into Facebook to see that). While I play APA sometimes, I'm not a huge fan of their weird rules. Nevertheless, they are the largest league in the world, so their unique terminology is presumably notable.

  • SL: Skill level, the player's handicap (usually between 2 and 8, though 1 and 9 are possible)
  • To throw off [on]: To pit a low skill level player against a high skill level player, for handicap balancing purposes at the whole-team level. Two common phrasings: "to throw off on a 7 with a 2", and "to throw off our 2 on their 7". The 6- or 7-ranked player may be said to have been "thrown off [on]", while the 2 or 3 is "thrown up" (a phrase that is considered very tongue-in-cheek for obvious reasons).
  • Heads-up: Evenly matched in skill level (handicap)
  • Hole: A player's position in the lineup that match; used with ordinal or cardinal numbers, e.g. "second hole", "five hole".
  • Leadoff: The first player in a team's lineup that match (i.e., the one hole or first hole).
  • To put up: Nominate the next player to play from a team's roster; the loser of the toss puts up first, as it gives the toss-winner the advantage of getting to strategically select who to pit against the toss-loser's leadoff. The phrase can be used with an object (e.g. "We're putting up Sam next.") or without, as already illustrated.
  • To match up: Compare skill levels and strategically decide who to put up (noun: match-up).

There are lots of others. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 06:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you can source any of the others but heads-up is common parlance adopted by the APA, not the other way around I don't think.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah so. I hadn't encountered in VNEA, BCA, etc. (But then again non-APA leagues spend much less time handwringing over statistics and just play.) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 21:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remember this but it's already in the glossary (though un-hyphenated, and I think you're right that it should be). I actually added it at this revision back before this was split to here from cue sports.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent snooker omissions

This glossary is exhaustive nowadays, I was a reasonable contributor a while ago, before I lost interest. I just had a few afterthoughts though, even though I don't really care about Wikipedia any more. Just wondering, has it been meaningfully updated since the recent revelations of snooker, since Barry Hearn got involved? Things like shot-clock (= timer), shoot-out (when it goes to a decider in the Premier League of Snooker), a new usage of the lag (in the Premier League shoot-out), etc. Also, what about the more grammatical terms that are paradigmatic in the commentary on the game, but not necessarily formally defined terms, like "loose" meaning when a red ball is pottable as opposed to in the pack, "on" meaning a ball is pottable (distinct from the specific meaning of "ball-on"), etc. And phrases like "where's the cue-ball going?" meaning they think it's going in the pocket. Kris (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need some sources, is the issue. They sound like good additions otherwise. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Suggested new reference

See also: Illustrated Principles of Pool and Billiards expanded online glossary [The previously unsigned comment was added to the article itself by Dga123 (talk · contribs), 16:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC) and moved here.][reply]

Could be interesting. It's webby nature might make some question its reliability, but it isn't really a blog, and is put together by a physics professor, as I recall. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually a reliable source; it's the online supplement to a well-accepted book by the same author.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adjustment to reference

Resolved
 – Correction made.

the down-trou reference refers to a scene in a NZ film Stickmen. The character wayne (scott willis) is playing a character refered to as "Pinhead" this is incorrect, the characters name is "Caller" as is stated after the actual down-trou "Jeez, Caller how do piss through that thing" [The previous unsigned comment was posted by User:Frothym, 12:20, 14 May 2008]

Please sign your posts (put ~~~~ after them). Anyway, I'll make the correction. PS: please use the same heading levels (==Heading==) as everyone else; I had to fix yours.— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split

Resolved
 – WP:Article size no longer recommends splitting lists like this.
This discussion initially began at User talk:SMcCandlish and has been moved here.

Someone has added {{longish}} to the glossary and they have a point. What do you think about splitting it into say Glossary of cue sports terms (A-L) and Glossary of cue sports terms (M-Z) (which division seems to split the articles current text approximately in half)? Is it necessary? If so, how would we go about fixing every {{Cuegloss}} link?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that just the other day, actually, when it took over a minute to load the thing for editing. The split sounds about right (for the next year or so >;-) I can handle the Cuegloss fixes with AWB, after I upgrade the template; it will need to have a new syntax something like {{Cuegloss|S|Side|side}}, {{Cuegloss|C|Cue ball|cue ball}}, etc. (It could be simpler, like {{Cuegloss|MZ|Side|side}}, but using the actual letter would make it future-proof, since the only thing needed to change if article further subdivided is what pages the template points to. NB: I have seen other long glossaries on WP split in this way, so it wouldn't be unusual. The original name would should just redir to the A-L page.
A related issue would be rewriting it to use lower case (except for proper nouns) in the entries. While this would be a variance from the MOS on heading capitalization, it is one that makes sense, would reduce user confusion (esp. with regard to things like "english"), and would make the syntax of Cuegloss simpler in most uses: {{Cuegloss|O|object ball}}; the final field would remain available for variant cases, e.g {{Cuegloss|K|kick|kicked}}. This should be discussed more fully at WT:CUEGLOSS, of course, but might as well raise it with you now.
PS: Did you get my e-mail last week? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'm not opposed to lowercase in theory but I'm wondering if it would look unencyclopedic. English is the only one I can think of that could be affected by this as to actual usage and I'm not sure just because its entry was made lowercase this would have that usage effect. Certainly, it would make placing the cuegloss template slightly easier with one less parameter necessary, but have you found anyone who wanted to use it who was stymied by this issue? Another words, I'm not sure we should change the standard appearance of a glossary unless there are profound advantages; our first concern is apparance for readers. Some other things to think about: 1) All the internal links in the glossary that after the split refer to definitions in the split off part (they will be numerous on both sides) must be changed to a full pipe to the other page; 2) Before we split, we need to identify every reference used more than once using <ref name="name" /> and if the full entry is before the split, and there are later uses after the split point, duplicate the initial full reference for the first after-split use (was that too convoluted to follow?). Checking my email now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I followed you. I can do the #1 cleanup in BBEdit reasonably easily. #2 won't be hard either. I hear you on the case issue; I have seen it done in at least 1 other glossary here, or I wouldn't've brought it up. See Glossary of poker terms to see what it looks like. I think it looks okay, but am not wedded to the idea. The main benefit would be making Cuegloss easier to use (more of a factor soon, after the split, than now). Not a huge deal either way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I looked at the poker glossary and it doesn't look bad at all that way. Also should we switch to the {{anchor}} method they use (is that even feasible with cuegloss template usage)? Let's you and I decide on a split point and coordinate tasks. I think it's up to you to first have the new Cuegloss template ready.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I think we'd better copy all this over to the glossary's talk page, just for the record. Haven't looked at the {{anchor}} stuff yet. The A-L/M-Z split point already discussed should work fine. Hmm. I'm going to have to hack {{CompactTOC8}} to work across multiple pages, too. <ponder> 21:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Been way too busy to even touch this, but I haven't forgotten it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The {{Anchor}} business is fantastic; using it for all likely attempts to get at a heading (e.g. ===Stop shot{{Anchors|Stop shot|Stop-shot|Stopshot|Stop|Stops}}===, ignoring the case issue for now) will greatly reduce the number of attempts at cueglossing that don't actually link to anything valid. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I make edits or add new entries I've been placing these anchors. Of course, we're increasing the size (!), but you're right that they are very useful.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking into maybe doing the split soon-ish, but AWB's latest several versions have severe bugs when it comes to tracking down and editing a particular template's inclusions on article and other pages. Can't do what needs to be done until this is resolved by the AWB development team. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if we create "sub-articles" fort the article (like: Glossary of cue sports terms/A) and then transclude them to it. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can't; it's against policy (on en.wiki). No /whatever subarticles, and no use of transclusions to obscure article content. It will need to be split, but we can't be "tricky" about it. It's just basically going to be a pain in the butt. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 07:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can solve this by converting the first parameter into a switch-parameter and define what the template should do by each parameter. Just like {{WWEPPV}} looks different as {{WWEPPV|Royal Rumble}} (at Royal Rumble) and as {{WWEPPV|WrestleMania}} (at WrestleMania). And this way we can split the article several times if needed. What do you think? Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at that code. I already had a pretty well-developed plan for this, but maybe someone else has already done something cooler. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 22:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for split perhaps questionable today

I'm no longer convinced that that a split is necessary or even useful. I want to research the "WP pulse" on what today really is considered "too long" and if the concerns about "too long" articles are really valid any longer (as I recall from 3 or so years ago, the issue was that some quite old browsers wouldn't handle long articles right, especially when editing, but they're now even older, and even less used). It would be preferable to not split the article at all. I understand that some poor people in Belize and Jamaica have shite decade-old computers running Win95 or MacOS 8 and Netscape 2.x, but we cannot dumb down the entire service for marginal users, who are used to problems and limitations already, and who surely have way bigger fish to fry than being able to edit a cue sports glossary easily. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 22:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If length is not as pressing an issue as it once was, I agree of course that it's better to keep it all in one place. I was never gung ho about splitting—just resigned to the technical benefits of it, as I took as read from WP:LENGTH.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] I've brought the matter up more broadly, using this article as an example, at Wikipedia talk:Article size#Time to revisit the technical problems argument, advise against splitting most long list articles, and suggested significant changes over there. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 10:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split The article should be split into 3-4 articles, to get under 100 kB.--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any online content of notable size and complexity poses difficulties for smartphones, though they are much more capable devices today that two years ago. It's not a case we can optimize for. Because the principal purpose of this article is providing centralized link targets for hundreds of cue sports jargon terms as used in hundreds of WP articles, it's completely implausible to split this list, unless and until someone replaces the code behind Template:Cuegloss with a Lua module that can parse the link terms and change the glossary sub-article target on the fly, based on the first letter of the term. This isn't an earth-shaking programming task, but until someone does it, the article can't be split.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the introduction

Resolved
 – Lead has been stable for many months.

A few paragraph introduction is not too much of a burden on our readers. The information should be set forth right there instead of being funnelled to a note section with "more" links. It reads very choppily, and will result in most readers simply not seeing the removed and footnoted information. Most of your recent changes and clarifications are great SM, but I truly disagree with this. I also still think pantsing and down-trou should be removed and have done so from eight-ball, but I won't protest their inclusion further here since the scope of a glossary is much more inclusive than an article on a specific game.---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The "[more]" thing was just an experiment. Agree with you on the changes to eight-ball - if the action isn't on the table, it needn't be considered part of the game for that article's purposes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC) The experiment is now undone, but I think the lead may be too long. I did pare down the material a bit (too much?), but it's still a lot. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki

Resolved
 – Old news.

I think this ought to be transwikied to Wiktionary. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It already has. They have their own out of date, barely-sourced, broken-linked, unmaintained copy. See Wikt:Appendix:Glossary of pool, billiards and snooker If you're saying that this should be transwikied and removed from Wikipedia, that debate has already ocurred a few times with regard to glossaries in general, as well as to this one specifically, and the result was not to do so. I'm too tired right now to dig up links. I vehemently oppose such a course of action though.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to dig up links; see the {{Notice}} box at top right of this talk page. Tubular, this issue really is long since settled. Yes, every glossary on WP should probably be transwikied to Wiktionary for Wiktionarian purposes, unless Wiktionary already has something similar that is better on that topic, and left as-is here at WP. And that is the end of it. Wiktionary has only a tiny handful of active editors compared to WP. Moving them to Wiktionary is simply off the table. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All cross-references now use Template:Cuegloss2

I've upgraded all the internal cross-references to use {{Cuegloss2}}. It's simpler markup, has dotted underlining indicating a defined term, links to the in-page definition, has a tool-tip showing where it links, and doesn't bluelink, reducing the "sea of blue" that this and any other well-cross-referenced glossary ends up with; all the links are either section (A, B, C, etc.) links or are inter-article links, e.g. to nine-ball or snooker.

Took an hour or so of reading BBEdit's documentation on how it uses regular expressions, but once I figured it out, this search/replace took about 1.5 seconds:

Find: \[\[#([-a-zA-Z0-0 ",'é]+[-a-zA-Z0-0 ",'é]+)[|]([-a-zA-Z0-0 ",'é]+)\]\]

Replace: {{cuegloss2|\1|\2}}

(In English that says: Look for a pattern bracketed with [[# and ]], consisting of two subpatterns divided by |, with the first consisting of at least two characters (any of: hyphens, alpha-numerics, spaces, quotation marks, commas, apostrophes and/or accute-accented e's), and the second consisting of at least one such character. The replacement just means put the first subpattern as the first parameter, second as the second. There's surely a more concise way to do this first pattern than simply doubling it, but it was expedient. I miissed a few, like those continaing "(" and ")" and had to fix them manually, but no big deal.)

I'll next use that same sort of facility to convert this to the template-structured glossary format documented at MOS:GLOSS. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to template-structured format, per MOS:GLOSS

I've finally gotten around to this. the glossary is now in the template-structured format instead of being laid-out with a heading for every entry. How this works is described at WP:Manual of Style/Glossaries. The format is a little more technical, but the results are better in a number of ways, including accessibility, and re-usability off-WP. The underlying structure used by the templates is the definition list HTML element <dl> and its sub-elements <dt> (term) and <dd> (definition), which were specifically designed for glossaries. The basic structure of an entry is:

{{term|entry name}}
{{defn|1= Definition text here.}}

A more complex example, with some variant spellings and multiple definitions:

{{term|1= entry name {{anchor|Entry name variant |entry-name-variant |etc.}} |entry name}}
{{defn|1= 1&nbsp; First definition text here.}}
{{defn|1= 2&nbsp; Second definition text here.}}

— SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cuegloss (and, here, Template:Cuegloss2) now easier to use

{{Cuegloss}} now only requires a second parameter if the content being linked to an entry is worded differently than the entry; case is no longer important:

  • Old usage: Three-cushion billiards uses two {{cuegloss|Cue ball|cue ball}}s and one {{cuegloss|Object ball|object ball}}.
  • New usage: Three-cushion billiards uses two {{cuegloss|cue ball}}s and one {{cuegloss|object ball}}.

The second parameter can still be used like so, as it always has been:

  • Complex usage: There is no {{cuegloss|rack (noun)|rack}} in carom billiards.

The {{cuegloss2}} version of the template is used inside the glossary itself, to reduce the "sea of blue" effect of intensive cross-referencing (it eliminates the blue color of the wikilink, and only uses the "defined term" dotted-underline style). The {{cuegloss2}} variant is also used to re-link a term to the definition when it reappears in a long article, without blue-linking it, just dotted-underlining it, and it also does not put a redundant <dfn> element around the term again.

— SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion limit

Unresolved
 – Dec2016 update: Last part of glossary and refs not displaying correctly

The page has breached the post-expand include size limit. The reference list and navbox at the bottom are now no longer visible. I assume it is this new template change that is causing this issue... could you consider trying to rectify it? — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will look into it. I think just changing {{cuegloss2}} to use the code from {{glossary link internal}} instead of transcluding it might fix this. If not, then, well, things will be interesting. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that fixed it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: {{cuegloss2}} no longer exists; we're just using {{gli}} (shortcut to {{glossary link internal}} directly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update Dec2016: The last part of list and references are no longer displaying correctly. Is it possible that this might be a transclusion limit issue again? -IPEdits (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

blind pocket

Often heard this term mentioned by Snooker commentators, what does it mean ? GrahamHardy (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Graham. A blind pocket refers to when you are attempting to shoot a cut shot (a shot with a lot of angle) at a pocket and because of where the cue and the object ball are and how steep the cut is, when you aim your cue ball at the spot on the ball you need to hit, the direction your eyes are pointing when looking from cue ball to object ball does not have the pocket in view (except for peripheral vision). Does that help? This is just from my knowledge of the expression, how it's used, and not from any source. We can add it if a good source is available (I just looked and the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Pool and Billiards has no definition for it).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saved tens of thousands of characters

I created a shortcut for {{glossary link internal}} at {{gli}}, and using that 2000+ times in this article saved a LOT of characters. I can already feel the difference in page loading time, especially in editing mode.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Glossary of cue sports terms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bar boxes that return the 8-ball?

Under WP:CUEGLOSS#ball-return mechanism, an unsourced claim has been added: "Some coin-operated tables will also return the 8 ball, to allow it to be spotted if it is pocketed on the break." I've flagged this with {{dubious}}, because I've played bar/pub pool in over 10 countries on three continents, but never seen this once. Where are these tables, and what company manufactures them?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Smccandlish: I removed that line as it was not sourced.
I have personally, on more than one occasion, seen coin operated tables return an object ball down the shoot intended for the cue ball. Sometimes it was random and sometimes it was the same object ball that kept being returned. I expect that this was not the intention of the table operator and that these tables used size or weight to distinguish the cue ball from the object balls where the tolerance of the mechanism was such that the variation of the billiard ball dimensions caused this effect.
If a table operator intended for the 8-ball to be returned same as the cue ball, they could very easily take another cueball, paint it black, mark it with an 8 and replace the 8ball. I have no doubt that somebody, somewhere, has done this, however I know it's definitely not standard. Writing that returning the 8ball, same as cueball, is a possible use of the ball return mechanism would make for a little bit more complete definition but unfortunately I cannot find any reliable sources stating such so, although it is absolutely true, without a source it would just be my own 'original research' attesting. -IPedits (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

broken

Unresolved
 – Even though it's working at the moment, if more entries(i.e. more templates) are added it could reach the transclusion limit and break again

Page seems broken. Reference links don't work, and page past middle of W section is garbled. Beyond my technical skill to fix, although I'm guessing it's gotten too big again. Just bringing it to the attention of the relevant editors. Gzuckier (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess the problem is likely due to the large size of this list. I don't know what exactly is wrong but maybe possibly something to do with Wikipedia:Template_limits or maybe transclsion limits. -IPedits (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
from wiki help desk:
 The page is in the hidden Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded and also displays a message in preview. The problem is Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size. There is a solution which would keep it in one page without hardcoding templates. Make two new templates and replace {{Defn|1= Definition of term.}} by {{Defn begin}}Definition of term.{{Defn end}} This would prevent Definition of term. from contributing to the post-expand include size. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like the solution, so how do we do this? @SMcCandlish:? -IPEdits (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just hacked the page a little and started replacing some defn templates with the html to put it under the transclusion limit so it's displaying correctly now, but I don't know if this is the best solution. 24.246.23.7 (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glossary_of_cue_sports_terms&oldid=756190150"