# Talk:Cribbage (pool)

Fuhghettaboutit: I saw your edit summary about the need for an image, but the example pic you provided was a redlink. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Not sure why it redlinked but it's Image:Eight Ball Rack 2005 SeanMcClean.jpg; I guess image links don't work in edit summaries. I know I just copied and pasted this from my edit summary (adding the colon so it doesn't propagate as I had there) and here it's bluelinked. If you were able to provide it (15 ball in center, the rest random but no 2 corner balls equalling fifteen), it could have a caption such as "one possible cribbage rack out of 134,120,448,000 possibilities."--Fuhghettaboutit 00:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it was the missing leading colon.  Anyway, that should be easy.  Can probably have that for you tomorrow (could do it tonight, but I'm not too happy with the first batch of pics, also taken at night, because the lighting was all overhead, and flat and artificial.)  Will also try to make it considerably more naturalistic.  I can't stand these pics where all the balls are lined up just-so, with the numbers all facing the exact same direction.  No one actually racks like that.  Will make sure the key balls' numbers are facing the lens, though.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cribbage (pool). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205042454/http://bca-pool.com/play/tournaments/rules/rls_gen.shtml to http://www.bca-pool.com/play/tournaments/rules/rls_gen.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cribbage (pool)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 01:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I'll take this. Expect a review within a week; otherwise ping me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Ping as requested Premeditated Chaos. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm the worst. Okay. I have some concerns about the breadth of this article, when compared to other modern cue sport GAs like Nine-ball, Cowboy pool, Slosh (cue sport), and Straight pool. Straight, Cowboy, and Slosh all have origins/history sections in addition to just a description of the gameplay, while this article lacks even that. I understand if the sourcing is lacking, but I think there has to be somewhat more than just gameplay to cover "breadth" and qualify for GA.
Is there anything additional that could be added to flesh the article out? Otherwise I think this must be a quick-fail. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I'll take a look. We are talking apples and spades here. Something like Slosh was once a well played competitive game. Straight pool is still massively competitive. Cribbage is more like playing a game of killer or something you might set up if you were bored of playing actual pool. I've got my book collection at home, so I'm sure there is something about the origins, which would probably be enough. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Online searches are a pain due to the name. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not surprised, unfortunately.
I think whether or not a topic like this can meet the breadth criteria is going to depend on how one reads the rule - whether "broad in its coverage" applies to the article in relation to the topic as a whole, or whether it applies to the article only in relation to what exists in reliable sources. I lean towards the first reading, which means that I feel where the sourcing doesn't cover certain aspects of the topic, the article is not going to be broad enough to hit GA, even when every available source has been plumbed. (My own GA white whale is Jewels of the Sea - hits GNG, but the sources just straight up don't cover background and recording, so IMO it can't hit the breadth requirement for GA).
If you feel my reading of the breadth criteria is off-base, I'm happy to go to WT:GA to get a discussion going about it and/or hand this off to another reviewer, no hard feelings either way. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 I gave it a go, but the people who would know (Shamos, etc) just give rules). I've got some sources that show it was a thing from the 1930s, but it's never been played professionally. 
Drive-by comment. I found a couple of earlier passing mentions, not that they help much. From "Cues and Miscues", Detroit Free Press, 19 Apr 1914, p.20: "'Doc' Stocking stands ready and willing to cross cues with anyone at cribbage pool, whatever that is."; and  "Sport in Alaska" in Ring Lardner's column in the Chicago Tribune, 17 Nov 1915, p.10, which is ancedotal about a complaint note left by a pool hall manager. (looks like a syndicated piece). I think it would be worth opening up the discussion about "the topic" v "what can be found in reliable sources" as mentioned above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I've started the discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#"Broad in its coverage". I didn't mention this GAN by name or ping either of you to avoid tilting the discussion towards being about this nom specifically. I used Jewels of the Sea as a non-GAN example instead. But obviously I'd like to see your opinions. (I've put this nom on hold for now). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski, it seems the discussion at WT:GA is going nowhere despite my attempt to revive it. I'm sorry; I was hoping for a firmer consensus one way or the other. Personally, I don't feel that I can pass this as a GA, but I don't feel fair dropping a fail on you, so I'll change the status to 2nd opinion and step back. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment. Per request I had a look for some history but didn't find anything. Desertarun (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


### Second opinion
Lee, PMC, I saw the request for a second opinion.  I think we can't fail on broadness if we have no evidence that sources exist beyond what's used in the article.  I'm currently reviewing Honolulu (pool) at GA, and have (a bit reluctantly) had to come to the same conclusion there.   I think both articles would be better off in a larger article that discussed pool variations, but I don't think that's a valid reason to fail a GA, so I'm expecting to pass Honolulu and I can't see a reason not to pass this.  The GA conversation you started was a good idea, but there's not a consensus for an interpretation that would allow a fail here, as far as I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

PMC, just checking I understand your comment above -- are you handing over the pass/fail decision to a second opinion?  If so I'm fine with looking over the article and passing or failing.  Or did you just want to get an opinion on broadness and then return to the review? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Handing it over - I don't feel comfortable making the pass/fail decision here. Failing feels unfair as consensus seems to disagree with me, but I don't feel I can rightly pass it either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy to make the final decision but as it happens I'm reviewing some even shorter articles so it seems worth having a conversation at WT:GAN.  I've started that thread and have pinged you to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
As I said above, I started a conversation at WT:GAN about "broadness" in June, but it got somewhat derailed (imo) by people misunderstanding my argument, and others arguing that we shouldn't have articles on topics that can't be brought to FA. Then it petered out and came to no consensus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
There's no consensus at the current WT:GA conversation that a short article should not be promoted.  I've read through and just have one additional question:

FN 2 seems wrong -- pages 120-122 show some hall of fame biographies.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the pages were for something else. I've changed to the correct pages 75-76. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Can you fix the link so it goes to that page?  Currently it still goes to 120. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I fixed it.  Passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)