Talk:Cowboy pool

message: Some of the material that was excised from the August 27, 2006 version should be restored. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone had a look at that material yet? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every single statement in this article is researched and cites to a reliable (and authoritative) source. The August 27, 2006 version is one person's first person recalll of some rules that were taught to him by somebody that cites to no sources. As such it was material that has no place in an encyclopedia. I am well aware that many articles do not cite their sources. It's a huge problem, but such material is a placeholder for proper content, and in many cases is worse than no content when the information is wrong. The proof of what a problem it is, is this very article. The August 27, 2006 version is correct in most of its statements but it is wrong in others. It is some regional variant and not this game, or this game but filtered through improper recall. It may be that the statements were reliable as to that regional variants rules (or not, how can we ever know without reliable sources?), but that unsourced material was worse than no article as it represented itself as this game.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading over my post above, and in conjunction with our punctuation kerfuffle (which I was grinning about when I was writing the edit summary but I don't know if that came across),  I'm not sure, but I hope the above doesn't come across as harsh. It's something that goes to the heart of my philosophy about Wikipedia, and I have been known to be a bit emphatic when discussing such matters.---Fuhghettaboutit 16:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No worries; I recognized that as issue fervor, not anger.  Anyway, I wasn't saying anything in particular, like this fact or that phrasing, from the old version was necessarily for keeping; more that it was a longer version with more detail than what the article looked like when I added that comment. Just wanted to make sure it had been looked at (by you, really, since you seem to be "shepherding" this article) before it was forgotten.  If you're satisfied that nothing needs to be recovered from that version, so am I.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overtrimmed 

message: It was suggested somewhere that two alternative names of cowboy pool are American four-ball billiards [presently redirects to four-ball billiards], or American four-ball for short, and four-ball carom (or four-ball caroms, 4-ball carom, 4-ball caroms).  Needs to be sourced before adding these and redirecting them here. I'm skeptical, because I'm pretty sure that  has separate articles on (not just cross-references between) at least two of these three basic names. I don't have the book handy, though.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative names 

message: According to the article, if a player reaches 90 points, he must reach 100 by making only caroms. After that, the player has to make a losing hazard to score the point of 101. But if the player is at 99 points, and caroms on all three object balls which is worth 2 points, what happens? 208.54.38.252 (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  99 points