Jump to content

Talk:Cue sports/Archive move-merge-split-redir-dab

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


Move to disambiguation page?

Resolved
 – Made moot by later consensus discussion (Page renamed, "Billiard" dab page created, "Billiards" comes here)

There is already a note saying the article should be cleaned up, but I'd say the major cleanup would be to make 'billiards' a disambiguation page. I'm not going to do any of this because I know too little about the subject, but I wanted to look up something about billiards and was confused by the description and the photographs of something that in the Netherlands is considered a child's game, to be found in some corner of a 'pool' or bowling hall (in the latter case because both come from the US). Apparently, what we call billiards (biljart) is in English called Carambole. The article states that the game in the pictures has been eclipsed by more popular games. So that makes it strange to have this version presented as the 'basic game', so to say. Furthermore, carambole (or rather 'Three cushion billiard', but there are many more varieties) isn't just a game, it's considered a sport or even an artform (in 'kunstbiljarten', where the objective is to play extremely difficult 'preset' shots in as elegant a way as possible). And I can imagine that carambole is the original game (or am I being eurocentric now?). So it certainly deserves a better place than in that list at the end (sort of like 'oh yes, and then there's that too').

I suggest making that list at the end of the article into a (descriptive) disambiguation page (maybe in the style of the football article, though that would require more info on the history), preferably with photographs because the descriptions are rather confusing. The most logical title would be 'billiards' because I don't think anyone looking for 'biljart' would come up with the name 'carambole' (I only know that term as 'making a shot' and I would have never thought of typing that). And a redirect from alternative spellings would also be nice, firstly from the singular 'billiard' and misspellings like billard(s), but also from the dutch (and other?) spelling 'biljart'. I had a hard time getting this right :).

This is beginning to sound like a 'what is football' rant, but is there no separate name for the game in the photographs, the one with the numbered balls and holes in the table? Or does our version of the game (I mean sport...) get stuck with an odd name like carambole (pars pro toto) just like our version of football is given ugly names like 'association football' or it's cildrens' abbreviation 'soccer' (yuck!)?

The article says 'the name (...) still finds employment where more "sophisticated" terms are needed.' What does that mean?

DirkvdM July 3, 2005 12:07 (UTC)

I second that proposal. I'm an Irish snooker fan, and I came here to learn about billiards as played by Joe Davis, Horace Lindrum et al., which is the only understood meaning of the term in snooker-playing countries such as Ireland, the UK, etc. Currently, wikipedia has no adequate entry for this long established sport, and this is the place to go into it in depth. IMO, the best thing to do is to make this article an in-depth description of "carambole" billiards, with links at the top to 8-ball, 9-ball, straight pool, and any of the other games which fall under the billiards class.The reasons I think this priority should be applied are, firstly, in many (most?) countries "billiards" means a specific game, namely "carambole", whereas in America, it refers to a class of games, and secondly, people in those countries wanting to find out about that game would never think to look in the article "Carambole", since that word is not in general use there (I'm a fairly dedicated snooker fan, and it's a new one on me).
But I do hesitate to make these changes myself, because I would be substituting an article with a lot of information (albeit badly presented) with one with very little info., because I know next to nothing about the highly complex game that is "carambole" billiards.
In any case, I'm registering my support for DirkvdM's argument.
RMoloney 20:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I vehemently oppose making Billiards a disambig page. The meaning of the word "billiards" as a blanket term for cue sports is not particularly ambiguous. I DO support forking much of the detailed content into more specific articles on specific games, equipment, techniques, terms, famous players, etc., etc., to keep the article reasonable-length. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I've quite changed my opinion on this matter. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments again

Resolved
 – Issues raised (eight-ball & nine-ball sections were missing, sloppy wording, splits) have been fixed.

I added most of the content to this page, but obviously numerous edits have been made. I am not a professional writer, or even a good one. When I reread the page, some of the wording is awkward. It would be nice to have some of the writing redone in a better "voice". Overall, I am happy with the content now. When I first saw this page there was practically nothing here.

The reason I had a section on 8-ball and 9-ball was because these are the most popular games in the US. I felt the article benefited from the discussion of a particular game from a general viewpoint. I am no longer sure this makes sense. Perhaps that needs to be converted to a more general discussion. After all, there are separate articles for those games. Having them described in any detail in the main article does not make sense.

I am not sure this really needs a disambiguation page. By definition, billiards is the blanket term for all cue and ball games played on a table, at least according to all respected billiard authors such as Mike Shamos. I think this goes back to the article being made more general, and sub topics being broken into separate articles.

Anyway, that's my two cents for improving this.

MichaelJHuman 15:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Changes

Resolved
 – No objections to rewrite and article has progressed much since then; glossary was split.

I just stumbled on this site (actually just realized it was editable by the public) and have been working to add to many of pool and billiards related articles. I am a professional pool player and have an advice column at allexperts.com under the title Pool_Teacher. I Just finished a cleanup, most significantly to clarify the use of the word "english" as referring predominantly to sidespin, and not to follow or draw. (See e.g., http://www.easypooltutor.com/article62.html)

--Fuhghettaboutit 04:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten much of this article and expanded it significantly (more to come). In rewriting I came across the following page: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/gr.aspx?word=Billiards&source=http%3a%2f% It appears that the kernel for that page or for this page, I cannot tell which came first, was word-for-word plagiarized from the other. As it states on that page, "This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of quality." Regardless of which came first, I agree. --Fuhghettaboutit 02:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'm pretty much done with the major revision. I believe the glossary I have added is the largest and most accurate on the internet in its definitions, and the only one I have seen which has common pool hall vernacular included. There's a whole language spoken only by pool players. I believe I have covered most of the words and expressions that are extremely common. What still needs significant work IMO is the section on three cushion billiards, and artistic billiards should be added in various places. It is a really spectacular game, and I have not seen it mentioned here or on wikipedia at all. Maybe I'll write the article. --Fuhghettaboutit 06:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the article is too long, the Glossary should be put on a seperate article page and the article should be linked to the main one. There might also be some other sections that should be seperated from the main one, such as english/spin, and perhaps some technical things. Think about someone that is new to billiards and they come across this page. Although it is extensive, it might be overwhelming, and as a pool player myself, I don't want to see that happen. 128.6.175.17 13:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Position play

Resolved
 – Content moved as suggested; now lives in Billiard techniques

This section seems misplaced. Shouldn't it go under the shooting techniques section? When I first expanded this article, that was my intention.

Michael Bauers

24.196.79.14 19:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, it works fine with position play being the intro to shooting techniques. Made the change. --Fuhghettaboutit 23:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Glossary

Resolved
 – Old news.

I've created a new page, Glossary of pool and billiards terms, and moved the glossary over to there. That accomplishes a few things:

  1. The length of the main billiards article goes from 69kb to 36kb, much closer to the preferred length.
  2. Related articles can now link to the definition of a specific term. For example, to define the term "draw" in an article on snooker, you would type [[Glossary of pool and billiards terms#draw|draw]], and instead of linking to the top of the billiards page, it will link straight to the glossary definition of "draw".
  3. Synonyms and related terms are now linked to each other for quicker reference.

Hope everyone enjoys it. I think it will be a big improvement for a lot of articles. Kafziel 00:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The above instructions are obsolete. Now just use this easy template: {{Cuegloss|Draw|draw}}; see Template:Cuegloss for full documentation and examples. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Stroke and Stance

Resolved
 – Topic moved to Talk:Cue sports techniques after article split.

I want to add a section on stroke and stance with cues, but I don't know where to put it. Should it put it in the cue stick section or in here? 70.111.251.203 14:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good topic for a new article. It's an exhaustive subject, requiring lots of photos or illustrations, so I don't think it could be adequately explained as a section of this article without taking up way too much space. I'd recommend getting a user name and starting a new article on it. Plenty of folks here would be glad to help. Kafziel 15:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the article

Resolved
 – Topic moved to Talk:Cue sports techniques after article split.

I think there should be seperate articles for the different kinds of shots in billiards, as well as a different page for position play, stance, stroke, Shooting techniques/mechanics. The article is too long by around 4 KB. 128.6.176.51 20:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any need for that much splitting. The Cue sports techniques article could handle all of these subtopics. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Billiard Techniques

 Just an FYI; material now lives at Cue sports techniques In response to a number of requests for it, I moved the section of shooting techniques, and made an attempt to organize it. I am SURE it needs more work, but it should be easier to change now. I added a link to it in the normal (internal) links section.

Sexual "billiard"

Resolved
 – WP:NFT / WP:NEO / WP:V and off-topic anyway, not to mention moot.

I think there needs to be a disambiguation because a billiard is also an act of felacio (sp?) where a woman takes and squeezes a man's testicle on the corner of her mouth... This is discussed in the extra commentary in the 40 y/o virgin as a source/pop-reference.

That's a neologism, like "donkey punch" and "dirty Sanchez", from Internet humor junkmail. Not widespread enough to warrant converting Billiard into a disambig page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Marking this "Resolved" since the larger disambig. issue has been addressed in more depth below, and the "sexual billiard" thing has no article, so the specific disambig. point raised here is completely moot. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Move of this article to "Cue sport"

Resolved
 – Article moved from Billiards to Cue sport, Billiards redirs here, Billiard is a disambig page.

It's time to move this article. The British Wikipedians in particular have been rather forceful about the issue that, to them, "billiards" as a term does not mean "all of the cue sports". WikiProject Cue sports has a well-thought-out plan for cleaning up this entire articlespace, and then proceeding with a lot more article additions, especially on core games and top players, as well as organizations and national/international tournaments. I'm about to file a Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals request to deal with this (since I foolishly already redir'd Cue sport to Billiards, otherwise this would already be taken care of. Mea culpa.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, being an American, I have never heard the term, "Cue sport," and would never think in 1015 years to look for an article on any type of billiards under that name. The room in the basement containing the straight-billiards table and the pool table was the "billiards room," period. I am imagining the blank stares if I said, "Let's go down to the Cue Sports Room." I have a sneaking suspicion that the usage tail is wagging the usage dog here, but if you are set on this move, you should be able to do it, because the redirect in question has only one edit. If it had more, the move would be blocked and need an admin. I promise to grumble quietly. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone should grumble quietly. If issues are there, let's talk them out. Sorry I didn't see this stuff sooner - I've been posting "big news" posts here - naming conventions, a WikiProject, etc. - for weeks to nearly dead silence, so I didn't expect anyone to care. I will remove the rename nomination from the "non-controversial" section over at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Done! Anyway, to get to the substance of your comment: I agree that no one says "cue sports room", and I'm not pretending otherwise. I'm also not suggesting that putting "billiards" into the searchbox on Wikipedia will take you nowhere! The problem is that "billiard[s]" (ignoring the non-game, e.g. mathematical, meanings entirely) has at least four meanings, and people are willing to pretty much fight about them.
OK, I have done a little research, and I am seriously doubting the propriety of this move. The comprehensive article in the Britannica is "Billiards," with the only information about "cue sports" being a relatively new league that has been set up, suggesting a neologism or trademark. The term "Cue sports" has 97K hits in Google, compared to some 1.3M hits for "Billiards". Limiting the search to the UK gives about an even split, and the UK-based suppliers seem to think that the term covers all forms of the game. I don't see much of a discussion as you imply. Can we discuss before you do this? Robert A.West (Talk) 12:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I do agree that the industry tends to use the terms generically; the problem is that "real people" don't, outside of the US.  :-) We have a serious disambiguation issue. See for example my attempt (still pending; you can yet weigh in) to get a videogame sub-sub-sub-category renamed to at least be consistent with the "billiards" naming (de facto) conventions. I about got my head bitten off by British folks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
In my experience, also as an American, is that "billiards" always refers to pocket billiards and nothing else. I would never think to call snooker or really any game not played on the normal US pool table "billiards". They're not a "type" of billiards to me, they're different games entirely.
I think it might be best to turn billiards into dab page iterating the various options rather than redirect to cue sports directly. As an American looking for information on "billiards", I could care less about other games played with a cue. Certainly though, cue sports would be linked from that dab page. -Anþony (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
That was my original plan, though I think in light of this discussion it might be better to keep "billiards" redirecting to "cue sports" after the (suggested) move. NB: While I agree that most American speakers mean "pool" when they say "billiards", I also say that the term among such speakers when they think about the distinction means more-than-pool. E.g., you will never see a shop here called "Sam's Billiards and Carom Supplies", if you see what I mean. Even in US usage, "billiards" subsumes the carom games. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, three of us are expressing some doubts, which should be enough evidence that this is not an uncontroversial move. I think you should relist it and open it up for discussion. -Anþony (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I am astonished to find an American who didn't regard straight (carom) billiards as billiards, Professor Harold Hill notwithstanding. I'd like a little time to do some research on usage. I don't suppose there is a deadline. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest this be re-filed as a "RM proper", as it's not clearly entirely uncontroversial (otherwise I'd just do it myself). (Or else withdrawn, if people need more time to consider the possibilities.) I'm broadly in favour of something like this, though the "usage" point is well-taken. Perhaps an alternative target, such as Billiards games, Billiards family or something along those lines. Alai 16:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I've already removed it as a "non-controversial" move and not relisted it as an normal article for rename yet (and whether or not I could actually just do a move-over-redirect, I'm holding off on that until this discussion plays out. I don't like stepping on toes!) At any rate, I'd like to draw a comparison to biological naming conventions and the articles associated with them. Notophthalmus viridescens (which redirects to the common name of the animal) is an article. So is Notophthalmus, a shorter article about the genus. That genus name is utterly non-ambiguous, which I see as a Good Thing. "Billiards" is darned near "fatally" ambiguous. Even Americans don't agree on what it means, much less English-speakers in general. I'm coming from a classification perspective. Nine-ball can be unambiguously classified as a variant of pocket billiards (or "pool" — whether pool and pocket billiards need separate articles is an open question not being addressed here), which can be classified unambiguously as a form of cue sport but only very ambiguously and confusingly as a form of billiards, because the typical UK reader, if not reading very closely, will come away with the impression that nine-ball, et al., are variants of English billiards, which is what the word billiards means to them. Even many Americans, English-savvy Europeans, Australians, etc., etc., would have cognitive dissonance, because many of them interpret billiards as meaning carom billiards, and nine-ball is clearly not a carom game, nor pocket billiards in general a form of carom billiards; the relationship is entirely historical/developmental. Lastly, "cue sports" is a legit term. While it is fairly recent it is pretty accurate, and is the term being used by proponents of pool, carom and snooker being in the Olympics; i.e., it's not Wikipedian WP:NEO b.s., but a reflection of international industry usage as a classifier which is the only way it is proposed to be used here. In short, the idea is to get out of the morass of "billiards" definition debates and simply go around that intractable issue. My current thoughts are that "billiards" should redir to "cue sport" (as would "cue sports", "cuesport", etc.); that "cue sport" have a disambig intro much like "billiards" presently does; that much of the detailia in the content of the page move to more specific articles (a process I've already started), and that there be a "billiards (disambiguation)" page that the disambig intro goes to, and to which "billiard" redirects (in the singular, it has at least two OTHER meanings, one of which relates to mathematics, not cue sports). Does this seem sane enough for everybody? In summary: We do want "billiards" to go somewhere useful for everyone regardless of dialect. The proposed change is constructive, not destructive. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I doubt the usefulness of cue sports here. The OED does not recognize it, which strongly suggests that it is very recent, post-1989 usage, even if not a complete neologism. In my version of AE, billiards is completely distinct from pool (and "pocket billiards" is a euphemism). Septentrionalis 22:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I question the relevance of the OED here, since "cue sports" is a phrase, not a word, and thus less likely to appear; the OED editors are a bit persnicketty about defining "concepts" rather than "words". Anyway, it is definitely not a complete neologism, and is used internationally (even outside of the English language): THE international organi[z|s]ation (quote: "...the permanent member for cue sports of the International Olympic Committee since 1998"; emphasis added), US organization, AU organisation, another AU organisation, NZ organisation, another NZ organisation, UK info site, CA organi[z|s]ation, SG organisation, DE organization, etc.; and a wide plethora of commercial entities such as equipment suppliers and even a US pool/snooker/carom hall. (NB: The fact that the BCA/WPA/WCBS/IOC use "cue sport[s]" rather than "cuesport[s]" is why I suggest the non-compounded spelling here. That, and disambiguation: "I've never heard of a port for cues before..." :-) The phrase probably is fairly recent, but I don't see that as particularly relevant. The goal here is to provide an "article home" for the top-level article on cue sports, which will necessarily encompass pool/pocket billiards, carom billiards, snooker, and funky variants like bumper pool and bagatelle, and not have it be confusingly (and in some cases irritatingly!) ambiguous. UK readers in particular get almost up in arms (see earlier topics on this page, and also the video game category rename dispute already linked to) about the generic usage of the term "billiards" by some (not even all) Americans. The fact that you (Pmanderson) consider "billiards" to mean "carom billiards as a category of games" is illustrative of the confusion. Another American just above insists it always means "pocket billiards". My roommate, an American like myself and (from what I can tell) like you, considers the word "billiards" to mean "all cue sports", and refers to my 9' standard pool table as "the billiards table". My mother, who visited for thanksgiving, called it that too (correction: She actually called it "the billiard table", without the "s"), but her husband (they're both Americans) called it a "pool table"; and so on. It's too personally subjective and disputatious to remain as the main title of the top-level article. I can't think of anything better than "cue sport[s]" given that term's "official" (organizational, at any rate) and international, multilingual usage. I don't think "spherical arts" cuts it, amusing as it is. So are there any other alternatives? The article won't be any harder to find than it is at present, because (if I understand the consensus on that point so far) "billiards" should redirect straight to "cue sport", not to a disambiguation page. I.e., I'm not really sure what the contention is about, and most of the comments here end up supporting the idea of the rename, by virtue of the fact that they highlight the inescapable ambiguity of the word "billiard[s]" — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think as far as categorizing and organizing the articles on all of the cue sports, the word "cue sports" should be used as the unambiguous technical term encapsulating all of them. (Category:Cue sports and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports, etc.) The most generic cue sports article should discuss the commonalities and differences of all the versions, much as billiards does now, but with an expanded discussion on the different uses of "billiards" and "cue sports".
However, since cue sports is an admittedly new term that most readers wouldn't recognize, its use in others articles should be limited (ie, not in the opening paragraph). Each article should identify itself in a manner appropriate to the region and dialect where it is common. For example, snooker would not identify as a "type" of billiards -- perhaps not even as a type of cue sport -- though pocket billiards would (as a piped link to cue sports). Billiards itself should just be a dab page with any variety of cue sport that anyone might possibly consider "billiards". -Anþony (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Your first paragraph there is precisely the idea. As to the second, there seems to be some concern, namely that Billiards should redir to what will be Cue sports, with a disambiguation intro the way the current Billiards page has, and that there will also be a Billiard (disambiguation) page to which this will refer and to which certain other redirs (e.g. Billiard singular) will redir directly. Would that work for you? I think that would ameliorate concerns that putting "Billiards" into the Wikipedia search box shouldn't take you to a "read 7 choices" disambig page, but take you to what would be Cue sports (i.e. what is presently Billiards), with the intro disambiguation paragraph ("hatnote") being sufficiently sane to direct UK people to English billiards, Yanks to Carom billiards, etc., if that is what they're looking for, and so on.) Yes? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not deny that some disambiguation is needed, but all the verifiable sources I see indicate that "cue sports" is a relative neologism that is little-used inside the U.S. and is a minority usage outside it, therefore a bad choice for an article title. Dismissing the OED as "persnickety" because it does not validate the usage is bad methodology, and besides the term is unknown to Merriam-Webster and Random House as well. The usage sounds like a wonderful terminology, and someday it may actually have the usage to justify using it as an article title, but I don't see verifiable indicia of widespread usage at this time. Wikipedia should not attempt to be a language tastemaker. As for disambiguation, I would suggest "Billiards and its derivatives" as the summary-style article, with appropriate individual articles. The title is descriptive and accurate, if perhaps a little stuffy, but is not an attempt at inventing new terminology or pushing an up-and-coming terminology. "Billiards" and "Cue sports" could redirect there -- I see little need for a separate disambiguation page, when the TOC will do nicely and there is a fair shot that the reader will be interested in the summary-style article. Perhaps a dab header at the top to direct people interested in straight (carom) or English Billiards. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I entirely follow you. I do agree that the disambiguation header is a Good Thing. On the OED sub-sub-topic, I did not mean to be flippant. The point was that the OED (and Webster's, and the RH dictionary, et al.) do not typically include entries on phrases that are descriptive and "figureoutable" (there's probably a word for that) on their own by reference to their parts. E.g., you won't find dictionary entries for "team sports" or "intramural sports" despite these being common current terms with clear meanings, because their meanings are immediately clear from their parts (cf. "cue" and "sport"). That is to say, a dictionary is not a particularly useful reference in this case, just as the DSM is not very useful for trying to ascertain whether a certain genus of salamander (e.g. Notophthalmus) is a current, valid categorization, whatever esteemed value the DSM may have in another (psychiatric, in this case) context. Lastly, I think you may not have seen up above where I demonstrated that the term "cue sport" (or "cue sports" in the plural) is used internationally, in both US and Commonwealth English, and even outside of the English language (e.g. in German) by sports organizations, not even just business entities (such as equipment suppliers using the term, and they do abound), and even more importantly is used by what is arguably the only international body with any authoritativeness on the topic, the WPA (chaptered in the US as the BCA) and its Intl. Olympic Committee representative body, the WCBS. I can't think of anything that could be more evidentiary or authoritative than that in this context. The WPA is "it". Can you explain your disagreement(s)/concern(s) more clearly? Start a new ===Subtopic=== if needed; this indentation is getting pretty deep... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the OED is a sub-topic, so I will respond here. The OED does not have separate entries for phrases, but under the (relevant) meaning of cue (n3), it notes cue-tip, cue-rack, cue-butt and cue ball (with and without hyphen); similarly, it lists water sports under water, with two quotations. Septentrionalis 16:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Usage

Resolved
 – Article moved from Billiards to Cue sport, Billiards redirs here, Billiard is a disambig page.

(outdent) I'll take some time to consider further, but from my perspective, you have provided is evidence of some usage, not of dominant usage, and it is dominant usage, not a decree from an "authority", that should decide Wikipedia usage. The Britannica Online uses "Billiard games" for the overall topic. The term "cue sport" occurs exactly once in all the articles related to the subject (a bio of Allison Fisher). Encarta uses the title "Billiards" to describe the family of games. A large proportion of the Google hits for "cue sport" are within pages, at about the place where an author begins reaching for his thesaurus.

All of this suggests an occasional or possibly new term. The Billiard Congress of America doesn't even mention the term. WPA may claim to be the governing body, but other organizations describe it as "up and coming," which suggests to me that the term "cue sport" may be part of WPA's marketing strategy. If so, our usage could present NPOV concerns. I could go on, but in short I don't see the amount of usage that I would expect when an older term has been replaced by a newer one. In eight or ten years, the story may be very different. For the next few days, I should not (if I know what is good for me) spend more time on this or any other Wikipedia matter. I promise I will look into the matter more thoroughly this weekend and it is always possible that a fresh look when I am not rushed will change my opinion. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, BCA uses it plenty of times: Google search of bca-pool.com on "cue sport" and Google search of bca-pool.com on "cue sports". As BCA is a national branch of WPA (World Pool-billiard Association, not the Women's Professional Billiards Association, just to be clear; their names and acronyms are a bit confusing...), and WPA uses it, I'm not sure the point's really relevant, but there it is anyway. I'd be interested in who is calling the WPA "up and coming", especially compared to such newbies on the scene as the very recent (and entirely commercially controlled) IPT. I don't see any evidence that "cue sport(s)" is simply WPA marketing strategy; I've already cited many other national-level organizations (which are not WPA affiliates in most cases, from what I can determine so far), and the Intl. Olympic Committee is also using it. I think this shows that the usage isn't particularly "occasional or possibly new". The effort to get cue sports into the olympics has been ongoing for as long as I've been playing. I don't see the term as any different from "water sports"; it's simply a classifying descriptive term, and like "cue sports", isn't generally used by people in everday speech. I've never said "hey, let's go to the lake for some water sports" (sexual connotation jokes aside); I say "let's go water skiing". But I would still unamibiguously and unhesitatingly classify water skiing as a water sport. Like "water sports" it is used widely in the professional and amateur organizational literature, and has clearly been adopted by the equipment supplier industry as well. I would agree that it is not "the" dominant terms at this point in time, but the problem is that there appears to be no clearly dominant term; as the closest thing to an industry-standard usage, "cue sport(s)" seems to be the best option (or the least of all the evils, if one wishes to view it that way). "Billiard" and "billiards" have radically different and conflicting meanings to different groups of people, even inside the US. It's unclear to me how "cue sport" being a term in a more formal register than colloquial, everyday speech makes it unsuitable as an article title; if anything, the opposite seems to be the case, especially given the inescapable ambiguity of "billiard(s)" — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
You bring up some very valid points. You're right to say that cue sport isn't the dominant term, but it is the only universally unambiguous one. I view it as a kind of technical jargon whose importance and meaning may only be clear to enthusiasts. Ideally, we wouldn't need it or use it, but the fact is we need something which refers unambiguously to the category of games. That's why I think we should adopt it in a limited fashion for the "behind the scenes" organizational structure when a unambiguous term is needed. In most of the individual articles, a case can be made to use one dialect or another, and "cue sports" should be avoided. The only place where it really matters is the broadest topic article, which can go to some length to cover the semantics issue from all angles. –  Anþony  talk  11:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Not the only universally-ambigious one. "Billiard games" (as used by Britannica) or "Billiard-type games" or "Billiard family of games" all surely communicate the idea of a group of games related to Billiards, regardless of what game the reader associates with that name. "Cue sports" on the other hand has defects. First, one doesn't normally refer to billiards in any form as a sport unless it is regulated competition -- rather like the distinction between Ballroom dancing and Dance sport. Second, the term "cue" has alternative meanings: a "cue game" could as easily mean a game based on verbal or visual cues (like Charades or Password) as meaning a game played with a cuestick. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd be OK with anything along Robert's suggestions. Alai 13:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, if there's agreement that "billiard games" or something along that line is unambiguous, then my position remains the same but with "cue sport" replaced with "billiard games". Billiards itself should still be a dab page. The summary style is poor solution for the reasons outlined by Alai below. –  Anþony  talk  23:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll then express disagreement with the idea that "billiard games" or something along those lines is in any way less ambiguous than "billiards". If I were accustomed to "billiard(s)" referring to English billiards or carom billiards in particular, these longer phrases do nothing to disambiguate that the topic under discussion is cue sports in general rather than English billiards or carom billiards "games" or "family of games", or whatever. As for "cue game" allegedly meaning Charades and its ilk, that example appears to me to be totally constructed. Unless it is used broadly by tournament organizers and the like, to such an extent that it is genuinely being confused with the term "cue sports", I don't think it's of any relevance. I don't see that citing Britannica using "billiard games" is particularly useful here. I was taken to task for argument to authority, and that's the same thing. And not much of an authority; I gather that the entire point of Wikipedia is to surpass Britannica in the first place. :-) The regulated competition argument doesn't seem very strong to me, mainly because there are in fact regulated competitions in virtually all areas of cue sports, even finger pool, trick shots, you name it, aside from the big ones like three-cushion, nine-ball, eight-ball and snooker, but secondly because the idea doesn't appear to hold any weight if you argue it more generally (e.g. water skiing for fun rather than professional competitive purposes is not an example of water sports; American football equipment is just gaming equipment not sporting goods unless purchased by athletes in regulated competition; etc.)— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that we are in fact talking about applying "cue sports" to the broadest article on the topic (and the extant "Billiards" article needs to be edited to move some of its more game-specific content to more specific articles about those games or subclasses of games.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Any more input?

Resolved
 – Article moved from Billiards to Cue sport, Billiards redirs here, Billiard is a disambig page.

It's been over a week now since anyone but me has posted on this thread. Any further input? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My position remains the same. Billiards itself should be a dab page. This page should move to cue sports or billiard games or something else, I'm not really particular on that point. The long hatnote here is ridiculous, though. –  Anþony  talk  10:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Marking all these topics "Resolved", as they are now moot. If any issues/questions/disagreement arises again with regard to any of it, please take it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cue sports. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed disambiguation page

Resolved
 – Article moved from Billiards to Cue sport, Billiards redirs here, Billiard is a disambig page.

I maintain that a disambiguation page at billiards is the way to go. The current paragraph-long hatnote is terrible as far as style and appearance goes. Functionally, it serves the exact same purpose as a dismbiguation page, when creating a real one would probably take fewer words and be easier to understand. See my sandbox for my proposed wording. My version is 79 words and the current hatnote is 98. Feel free to modify it. –  Anþony  talk  09:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC) [struckthough link to material that is not longer available. - SMcCandlish, Jan. 27, 2007]

Strikes me as a very good start. I'm going to marginally side with those that think some kind of hatnote is needed and that Billiards should go to whatever page is the "head" of this articlespace, and suggest that this is a good first draft of Billiard (disambiguation) to which that hatnote could refer and to which some things (Billiard for example) could redirect directly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
If billiards redirects directly to cue sports, that says in effect that cue sports is the primary topic for "billiards", which is a tacit endorsement of the American usage. On the other hand, if billiards is a dab page, cue sports wouldn't get people coming to that page expecting something else, so a hatnote would be unnecessary. I think this is the cleanest and most logical solution. –  Anþony  talk  10:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
No objection by me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that billiards should be a disambig, and I don't see much disagreement on that as such. The tricky aspect is what to do with this article. Short of getting rid of/refactoring the article entirely, we'd need a move target (if only to "make room" for the disambig). Alai 13:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(violating my wikibreak) Why a dab page as opposed to an article in summary style? It could have one dab header pointing to Billiard (number), and the TOC would serve the same purpose. Yes, it would take one more click to get to the article for any particular game, but many readers would be satisfied with the information in the summary article, which would permit a discusson of common history and features. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Because that has the same problem as at present: "billiards" doesn't unambiguously mean "the whole family of billiards and related games", especially not to non-US readers. And it leaves the same (other) problem as to what to do with the current article. Alai 17:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Title the article whatever we would title the dab page -- that is a separate question. Are you unfamiliar with summary style? The current article could be turned into one easily. It would continue to describe the common features of all the games, and would have a short paragraph on each separate game, together with a {{main}} link to the separate article on each game, assuming we have enough material for one. If not, the short paragraph serves the same function as a stub would. For some readers who are interested in an overview of the diversity of cuestick-and-balls-on-felt games, the summary-style article presents it. For those who want to find information on a particular game, the summary style article gets one there in two clicks: one on the TOC and one on the article link. I don't see what a separate dab page will add to Wikipedia. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm familiar with summary style. A suitable title for a "different meanings of the word 'billiards'" article (which would obviously be billiards as a disambig) is not (necessarily and in this case, actually) also suitable for a summary article on "the history of the games collectively called 'billiards' by some, and something else by others", which has exactly the same naming issues as a non-summary article (see the above arguments as to why this should not be billiards). Alai 17:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It's been over a week now since anyone has posted on this thread. Any further input? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Marking this topic "Resolved". There may actually be some out-standing issues, but this is not the venue for them any longer, and if they arise they should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cue sports. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation & move results

Resolved
 – Article moved from Billiards to Cue sport, Billiards redirs here, Billiard is a disambig page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arguments against [[Cue sport]]:

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

Arguments for [[Cue sport]]:

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

Further discussion

Resolved
 – Article moved from Billiards to Cue sport, Billiards redirs here, Billiard is a disambig page.

So now what? I'm not an admin or arbitrator and I don't feel I'm in a position to "declare" consensus, but will opine that I feel that the consensus leanings are strongly toward the rename. If anyone feels their positions have been miscast, I'll be happy to correct the above stuff, or you can just do it yourself of course. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that pretty accurately sums it up. One anti-"cue sports" argument that you forgot to mention is that most people consider them to be games, not sports. The industry may be using the term to push an agenda, such as getting billiards into the Olympics. Still, I don't think any of the names are really ideal, so I won't express a preference for any one. –  Anþony  talk  22:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
PS: to Robert A. West: I'd be shocked if the main article were not summary style within X amount of time (where X depends on how active we all are as editors). This is certainly a rich enough topic! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that, if we create a dab page, it will probably turn into a summary style article in time. We have an article that could be transformed into summary style now, so why destroy that and make it a dab? We will just have to redo the work later. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
No, he's saying that cue sports or whatever the top-level topic is will likely be a summary article. If we do billiards in summary style, it's basically going to serve the same function as a dab page, only it'll be more wordy and make the specific topics harder to find. If I type billiards looking to find pocket billiards, all the extra stuff about the history and the other games is just getting in my way. –  Anþony  talk  13:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Right. Robert, I do not believe that there are nearly enough interpretations of the word "billiard(s)" (even including silly sexual ones that don't have articles and almost certainly never will) that a disambiguation page at Billiards would ever turn into a summary-style article.— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ
So, you are proposing both a dab page and a summary-style article? That strikes me as silly. There are three classes of reader for this topic. Claims about which is most numerous are largely speculation, so I treat them as equally important a priori.
  1. Is using Billiards as a generic name. This person is well served by the summary article and will need to click an additional time if he hits a dab page instead.
  2. Wants basic information on a particular game. This person is served equally well served by a good summary article and a dab page. In one instance, he has click on the TOC entry, in the other he has to click on a link.
  3. Wants detailed information on a particular game, but knows that game simply as "Billiards". This person will need to make one click from a dab page, and two from a summary-style article. (Once on the TOC entry for the game, and once on the link in the section.)
Since one group is better off each way, and the third is pretty much equally well served by each, I prefer the simpler structure: a main article in summary style and no dab page. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the disambiguation page is already an accepted-by-consensus issue, I think. Anyway, I was not "proposing" a summary-style article; I'm simply saying that I think in a few years that Cue sport, like any other topic that spawns a lot of material that generates subarticles, will naturally evolve more and more towards summary style. I don't see anthing at WP:SUMMARY that suggests that summary-style articles and disambiguation page are intended to serve the same purpose, so I'm not sure why you are treating them like either/or options in the first place. Disambiguation pages are for directing people to the correct article out of many similarly named ones. Summary-style articles are for helping people navigate a complex overarching topic that has many/most of the details available on the topic split out into subpages. None of this has anything to do with the article move. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, to address your 1-2-3 points: A disambig page serves need #1 equally by directing them where they want to go, because user #1 will still need to do one extra click to get to the "see main article" they are actually looking for. The other two points actually side with disambiguation not summary-style, so I think this subdebate is done with. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[Re: "User:Robert A West somewhat opposes"]
That was before I did some research, and thought I might just be behind the times. After research, I believe that "cue sports" is advocacy by a particular group, and therefore fails NPOV. I now strongly oppose on that basis. (User:Robert A West) (Talk) 12:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
On the basis of what evidence? In just minutes of research I found numerous cue sports organizations all around the English-speaking world using this term, and cited all of them in detail here, with links. I've already proven that it's not WP:NEO or WP:NPOV, and disproven this "a particular group" theory, back when the debate was only days old. I'm really not following you here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
We are looking at the same evidence and drawing opposite conclusions. For my part, the lack of OED citation of usage proves that the term was unknown to lexicographers in 1989 -- that is relatively new, and it would be remarkable for a new term to take over in so short a time. The Google test shows far fewer hits than I would expect if this had become the accepted term. Moreover, the links you show are a particular international organization, not universally recognized, and its affiliates. That, in my view, makes the term advocacy. I don't know how to explain myself more clearly than that.
This appears to be a moot point. The term is used internationally and broadly, at a professional level (proof already given above) and is cited from multiple, independent sources. What more is needed? I think you may just be concerned with the idea that no one says "let's go to the cue sports hall", but I question the relevance of this issue. The term is a classifier, not 2006 street slang. No one says "let's go to the lake for some water sports" either, but this does not invalidate the categorization, nor the overarching (if inadequate — where's the history section?) article at that topic. If waterskiiing, boogieboarding and windsurfing are not all under Category:Water sports (or something equivalent) I'd be so shocked I'd cough up my skull. Cf. also "automobile racing. No one actually says "I'm going to the automobile racing establishent to place wagers on the outcome of the contest", they say "I'm gonna go bet on a car race." I.e., vernacular vs. categorizing usage is simply an irrelevancy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I've already addressed the idea that the OED as authoritative on this sort of terminology. You won't find terms like fanwank or triphop in the OED either; there really is no "neologism" issue, and we already know "cue sports" dates to at least the early nineties when the olympic challenge began to arise, so "neo-" is being stretched past the normal limits of the prefix. The OED (and any dictionary for that matter) is a very slow-moving process, and one that limits its entries to that which its editors believe need defining; easily parseable phrases like "cue sports" generally don't count (except as usage/combining examples, as someone above pointed out was the case with "water sports", I believe). I doubt there is an entry for "stock car racing" or "arbitral tribunal" or "variety store" in the OED either (though I'd bet there will be for less obviously "figuroutable" phrases as "radio telescope" and "creation science". On second thought, I'd bet real money that "creation science" is not in the OED despite its importance because it's a "neologism" in your terms.) The fact that your evidence suggests that "cue sports" arose as a notable term some time in the last seventeen years — pretty much an entire generation — isn't indicative of anything at all about lack of encyclopedic worth. Everyone here knows you want to use the word "billiard(s)" (and one respondent was supportive of the idea, as I noted in the summary). But there's an overwhelming consensus among the participants that it is too ambiguous — this was the point of the disambiguation proposal in the first place; making it more longwinded with "-family", etc., doesn't solve the ambiguity (nor the especially British outright consternation at what many of them see as overbroad abuse of the word). I think this problem has a lot to do with why the idea of a Billiards summary-style article, vs. a disambiguation page, had only one supporter (its proponent). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Where did I mention street slang? "Billiards" is not regarded as slang by anyone, except possibly for a sexual act, and appears in the names of various respectable organizations: the United States Billiards Association, the World Confederation of Billiard Sports, etc. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say you did, and I wasn't talking about the word "billiard(s)". I'm simply saying that "cue sport" isn't some hipster neologism, it's a real term used broadly and internationally by the intrustry as a (presently the only) nonambiguous blanket term. If I'd come here with a proposal that Billiards be moved to Shootin' some stick, I'd understand your objection (and you wouldn't even need to make questionably-relevant reference to a dictionary to convincingly make a case against it). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Then you are arguing against a point I have not made. I argued that the term was relatively new and has not yet (and may never) become the dominant generic term for the class of games. I am puzzled by your dismissal of dictionaries as evidence of usage -- that is what dictionaries do. Your evidence shows non-trivial usage, which I do not dispute, but does not demonstrate dominance, which is what is required. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
As for the summary-vs-dab issue, no they are not logically exclusive, but given the paucity of other meanings, I don't see the need for both in this instance. I realize that I am a voice in the wilderness at the moment, but I reserve the right to try to convince other people to change their minds. I did think for one round of responses that you meant to completely split the present material into separate articles and create a dab page now, and leaving a summary article to the future. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
No one is proposing both, I assure you; I.e., I think you are trying to get people to change their minds away from something they're already away from. All that happened here was I (and no one else) just expressed a theory that articles on complex topics have a tendency over time to turn into summary-style articles (which is my rede on why they exist: WP:SUMMARY). I'm sorry I even brought it up, since it wasn't substantive and my meaning was apparently not made clear enough and became contentious. D'oh. I hate when that happens.  :-/ — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Anything else to go over? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion

Resolved
 – Article moved from Billiards to Cue sport, Billiards redirs here, Billiard is a disambig page.

This proposal appears to me to be carried by consensus, and that the (refactored) #Disambiguation & move results summary accurately reflects the discussion. There is one objector, whose issues have been addressed to the extent that they seem that they will/can be (and possibly not to his satisfaction), but this is not enough to avoid a finding of general consensus. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've completed the move, as requested at WP:RM. I haven't fixed any double-redirects, because I'm not sure they all need to point to Cue sport. Someone will probably want to go through and make sure those are taken care of. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Marking this topic and subtopics "Resolved". If there are any out-standing issues, this is not the venue for them any longer, and if they arise they should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cue sports. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible merge?

Resolved
 – No consensus for merge after almost 3 months.

Has any thought been given of merging this with Pocket billiards as the two articles are basically about the same idea? Keeper | 76 23:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I do not think you are reading them very closely, then. Cue sports is about all cue sports, pocket and non-pocket (and including obstacle games, puck-based ball-less variants, and so on), as a family, going back to the dawn of history or whatever, while Pocket billiards is about the "pool" variants, as a subclass, and largely excluding snooker which while technically a pocket billiards game is its own "animal" as a cultural and sporting phenomenon. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cue_sports/Archive_move-merge-split-redir-dab&oldid=1201269848"