Talk:Rack (billiards)

message: I'm wondering if this is the right place to mention this. How about mentioning that wood is preferred by serious players since it allows them to make a tighter rack? --Pdahero 07:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aluminum is now the preferred rack of professional players since there is no flex or warping of the rack. I.e: Delta-13  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.52.254 (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's completely contradictory and neither of you cite sources. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

text: And some pro events mandate the use of the Sardo TightRack and other  ones. So, there is no neutral way to have this article say one or the other is professionally preferred, even  reliable sources, since those sources will differ from the position of other equally reliable sources, like trying to source whether cats vs. dogs are "better" or Buddhism is "better" than Zoroastrianism, etc.  It's a "religious" matter. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rack material

message: Racking and the rack itself seem to me, at least, to be a more than superficial topics. Racking the balls tightly, finding weaknesses in a rack, where to aim when breaking, breaking for optimal position of the cue, etc. etc. Too in depth maybe? --Pdahero 07:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My only caveat would be policy restrictions on writing "advice" or "how-to" articles, which are not encyclopedic by nature. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article depth

message: This is not a full-on merge proposal, like anyone needs to pop in with Support or Oppose !votes, but just a return to discussion started long ago, near the top of this page. Every time I return to this article I lean more and more toward merging most of the content into game-specific articles and what little is left over into . It doesn't make any sense to me that racking for any game is better handled here than at the game's article, which actually seems to be the case with a few games here. It's just a weird article anyway. It's like having an article on "driving", with sections on cars, trucks, motorboats, etc. Or "ball hitting", with sections on baseball, cricket, field hockey, pool, etc.  Yet it's named in noun terms, despite being about how to rack (verb) for various games. And isn't even comprehensive in that regard. It's not something anyone will likely search for, and even if they did, we have a glossary entry for them, and racking/set-up sections at the game-specific articles.  Am I missing something? If this is not a good idea, I don't want to just go off and do it, even if I am a fan of WP:BOLD. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: An anon added this (I've copyedited it a little) to the article without a source, so I removed it:
I guess there could theoretically be something to this, but a reliable source would have to be found. And I would think it would appertain when breaking one's own rack, to produce fewer problematic clusters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim about 9-ball rack strategy