Talk:Glossary of cue sports terms/Archive 1

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: PS: Over a month later, I'm not sure I like my own suggestion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 21:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting standardization

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: PS: Over a month later, I'm not sure I like my own suggestion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 21:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Verb/noun usage consistency

message: 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)
thread_title: Illustrative quotoids

message: 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  works such that to link to Glossary of cue sports terms#jump shot all that would be required is , instead of .  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)
thread_title: Lower case lead characters

message: 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". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 00:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IMPORTANT: Update extant links if entry renamed!

message: 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)
replies: text: * Understood.  I'm a little concerned that the term isn't linked to anything. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 19:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *:I'm very surprised about that. Kris 21:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Professional foul

message: And just remove "cross rake"; we don't use cross rests in American pool/carom/etc., and the British usage is simply "cross" or rarely "cross rest". I.e. the term "cross rake" is simply bogus.  "Cross rest" doesn't really need to be in there either; people will find either "cross" because they simply went there first, or they'll find "rest" first because they saw "cross rest" used in prose and tried rest first (or second, after not finding "cross rest"); getting to "cross" eventually is intuitively obvious. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 00:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Cross rake" not a valid term

message: A form of team play in which two players compete against another team of two players in any given frame or match.
:*Isn't this just a general sports/gaming term? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * This is more general than the term "Scotch doubles", but per the entries for "match", "game", "frame", "round" and "inning", the exact meaning in the cue sports context may be unique enough to support an entry.  I think it would need to be differenced from "Scotch doubles" better, something like, "A form of team play in which two players compete against another team of two players in any given frame or match. In a doubles game, the first player from the breaking team is the only one who shoots during the opening inning, with control of the table passing to a member of the opposing team at the end of that inning, then upon the end of the opponent's inning to the doubles partner of the original player, and next to the second opponent, play proceeding in this doubly-alternating manner until concluded. Contrast Scotch doubles." — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 19:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Adding unopposed explanatory version to glossary. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 19:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doubles

message: And the entry for "lag" is way too big for a glossary. Kris 00:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agree.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Unresolved: No one's done anything about it yet. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 21:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: This entry is no longer longwinded, so I'm marking this "resolved".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: "Lag" section too longwinded

message: A #Cross-corner bank shot from one end of the table to the other (i.e. across the #Center string).  Long banks are considerably more difficult, because of the smaller margin for error due to distance and angle widening, than short cross-corner and #Cross-side banks from the end of the table. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 01:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Long bank

message: The vast majority of snooker articles use the full term.  Propose changing:
===Maximum===
(text here)
to:
===Maximum break===
Also simply maximum'.(text here)
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 23:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maximum &rArr; Maximum break

message: A form of doubles play in which the two team members take it in turns throughout the frame to play alternate shots during an inning.
:* Again, I think this is just general sports terminology for any game in which play can alternate like that, isn't it?  I wonder if there is already an article under one name or another that covers doubles and Scotch doubles more generally? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Actually, every single use of this term on WP is in reference to cue sports, and the first several pages of Google hits are also, or refer to bowling.  Not sure which sport created the term, but it is not so broadly used as I thought, so it would make a good entry. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 19:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Adding to glossary, with explanatory expansion; unopposed for nearly a month. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 19:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scotch doubles

message: As used in Five-pins, et al.  Well sourced there, even with date of first known usage. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 17:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NB: A conforming (and disambiguating) entry for  was also required. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Skittle

message: This entry probably needs to also explain the phrase "snookers required" ("he required a snooker", etc); several articles use this, but I don't think any of the snooker articles anywhere actually explain what it means. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me if I'm missing the point here but the phrase is defined under its own title in this glossary, I added it a while ago. Maybe an internal link could be included within the snooker entry. Kris 09:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I simply didn't see it! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Snooker

message: 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)
thread_title: Squeeze shot, throw shot

message: See Eight-ball, under Australian and NZ variants. Source: Note: There is a continuity error in the film, in which one of Wayne's balls can be seen, blurry and in the background, still on the table as he pots the 8 ball, but the plot makes it clear that he fictively did in fact run out and pocket the 8 legally to win the game.  The text at eight-ball can probably just be copypasted to make the entry.  Any objections? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 19:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow-up note: See later thread about this and some "slow-editwarring" over the years to remove it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Down-trou

message: Should this be covered here or at eight-ball? 68.35.40.113 15:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straight eight

message: 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)
thread_title: Push shot

message: Mentioned at :Tom Reece with nowhere to link. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 04:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cradle cannon nurse

message: 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)
thread_title: Black spot, etc.

message: 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)
thread_title: Last-pocket and bank-the-8

message: 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)
thread_title: See

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Added. See blank. Needed it anyway for my rewrite of George Balabushka.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Duck egg?

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

message: I removed this misplaced and nonencyclopedically written entry from :
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Jimmy rack

message: {{Disregard|"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing."
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)
replies: text: No source, and lighting having somethign to do with it seems physically impossible. This is an extraordinary claim.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Cling

message: I'm looking for the right term for which player is having the right to break a game. There are a few possibilities, like draw or throwing a coin. In pool and carom both players are shooting simultaneously a ball from the foot of the table up to its head and back. The player with his ball closer to the foot rail is having the break. I think I red "Shoot-out" somewhere, but can't find it anymore. Is that term right? If yes, can someone add this to the list. Thanx in advance. --LezFraniak (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi LezFraniak. What you are referring to is . Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  --LezFraniak (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

text: PS: I think I've seen "shoot-out" used as a slangy term for a single-elimination tournament, but it doesn't seem pool-specific.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shoot-out?!