Talk:English billiards

message: Question: how are the balls returned to play once they are sunk?
:The cue balls are not returned until the round ends. The other (red) ball goes back to a spot on the table. Leon 00:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The opponent's cue ball remains off table until the end of inning , the striker's cue ball after going in-off is in-hand, which means it can be placed anywhere inside the D. Balls out of baulk can be played directly, balls inside the baulk area can only be played after contact with a cushion (rail) outside the baulk.CWSteiner (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ball return after potting

message: Wikified!
--144.132.75.11 12:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikified

message: I'm going to remove the image from this article; it's confusing since the balls are all wrong Leon 00:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with them? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er.. well it's a picture of a snooker match, which is a completely different game. BennyFromCrossroads 15:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I've not come accross this very often, but have done on occasion in my time playing billiards - what happens if the red spot is obscured after a pot red (i.e. one of the cue balls occupies the spot, by coincidence of landing there)? Anyone know? [The previous unsigned comment was posted by , 19 April 2007 (UTC)]
:In every other billiards-family game of which I am aware in which balls are spotted and a similar situation sometimes arises, with one exception, it is placed behind the blocking ball (i.e. on the center line, between the spot and the foot rail, which I believe is called the top rail in UK/Aus. usage) as close to that ball as possible without touching it.  (The one exception I encountered was some game in which it is instead spotted against the foot rail.)  Anyway, it would need to be sourced to add it to the article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 17:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What if the red spot is blocked?

message: Bob Marshall (billiards player) mentions a (historical) "two-pot" rule.  What is this rule, with source(s)? Need to be added here in detail, menioned in summary form at Glossary of cue sports terms and linked to either here or there at the Marshall article, which presently has a redlink to a Two-pot rule which should not be its own article, and at Geet Sethi which mentions the three-pot rule but links to nothing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 17:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two-pot rule, three-pot rule 

message: The two radically different scoring methods used need to be explained here, in a linkable section, so that results like the scores in the following (partial) chart can be easily explained to non-experts (and same goes for the "up" aspect):
Year	Venue             	Winner         	Country	Runner-up            	Country 	Score
2005	Malta             	Pankaj Advani  	India  	Geet Sethi           	India   	2242-1717
2003	India             	Lee Lagan      	England	Geet Sethi           	India   	6-5 (150up)
2002	Australia (timed) 	Mike Russell   	England	Geet Sethi           	India   	2438-1499
2002	Australia (points)	Ashok Shandilya	India  	Praput Chaithanasakun	Thailand	11-9 (50up)
These different scoring methods reflect the different modes of play. The first match obviously has been a timed game(probably 4 hrs of play). The second must have been a set of games to 150-up, best of 11, whereas the fourth one has been a very short format game, first to reach 50 scores (50-up), best of 21.CWSteiner (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two different scoring methods 

message: The English Amateur Billiards Association provides three pages of trascribed old materials that may be of use, esp. with regard to the history of the game:
:http://www.eaba.co.uk/books/book-index.html
:http://www.eaba.co.uk/articles/article-index.html
:http://www.eaba.co.uk/mags/mag-index.html
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources to plunder

message: Are there any jargon terms for quadruple centuries and the like?  ("Quads", or something like that?)  Just want to make sure that Glossary of cue sports terms accounts for them if so. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 02:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triple, quadruple, etc., centuries 

message: The terms all-in and spot-barred are used and discussed a little bit at :World Professional Billiards Championship, but not defined, and are very likely to be impenetrable to users unfamiliar with the topic. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 04:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All-in vs. spot-barred 

message: I agree that eaba.co.uk is not an Organisation reaching for European or even Worldwide relevance, BUT it still contains a fantastic compendium on English Billiards history, with facts, figures, articles from books and magazines, certainly the rules and holds the calendar of scheduled events of the current and past seasons with their results.
Therefore the EABA external link seems more than worth mentioning in WP.
Secondly, what in an Organization called 'English Billiards Open Series - European Tour' does not reach out for European/Worldwide level?
If you'd checked the current ranking http://www.e-bos.net/Rankings_0809.htm you'd find players from Poland, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Austria, Spain, England, and even from Singapore, Thailand and India as participants, reflecting the Open character of the series and its Worldwide relevance is underlined by the fact that the IBSF already had allowed three or four EBOS players a definite space in the IBSF Amateur World Championships starting from 2008 onwards.
EBOS as well is organizing the European Championships in conjunction with EBSA, http://www.ebsa.tv/index.htmDuffel, Belgium June 11-13, 2009!
The billiard-junkies forum is a worldwide open playground for the community of billiards enthusiasts.
If you checked the forum categories http://www.billiard-junkies.co.uk/index.php?action=forum you had seen the tabs 
Amateur, Professional, Worldwide, Asian, European and Oceania Billiards very well reflecting the unlimited access and widespread field of interest. And in its uniqueness it certainly deserves a mention in WP.
Regarding the coaching site, I put up a link to, I have to admit the coach speaks solely English and only is six-times English Amateur Champion, but for the game of 'English Billiards' these circumstances should also be sufficiently effectual to earn a display in WP. The user has to register, though, but still it is free and non-profit-oriented with the mere intention to foster the game of English Billiards. Additionally, it is the best coaching one could get, and again, it's the only one.
Thanks for probably reconsidering putting up these enhancements as suggestions to every Billiards player.--CWSteiner (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: HI, I've reinstated the EABA site, as a national governing body (NGB). All the best, bigpad (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links removed 

message: I've read up on these rules.
There is one situation which I cannot find the scoring system for, or if it is not scored.
I strike my cue ball and it hits my opponent's cue ball, my opponent's cue ball then hits the red ball and the red ball is pocketed. If this occurs, do I get the 3 points for a winning hazard even though my cue ball did not come in contact with the red ball?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.52.240 (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusual occurance? 

message: In the USA in 1915 billiards hall owners bought more snooker table? Snooker didn't exist then? Surely that they bought more 'billiard tables' is more appropriate? The article also says "(and in many venues, both games are played on the same equipment)" - in ALL venues both games are played with the same equipment because there is no distinction between the two - they are played on EXACTLY the same equipment. All snooker is played on a billiards table, technically there is no such thing as a snooker table although the term has entered common parlance as snooker has become the dominant format.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.4 (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct on the name of the table, but "billiard table" carries confusion with it, because of the preference among some Americans including the body who govern pool to call pool "pocket billiards". If we were to use the term "billiard table" instead of "snooker table" then some readers would be confused--just as Commonwealth readers are confused if pool is referred to as pocket billiards. As to the second one what happens if only one game is played at a venue (ie a snooker hall that has no billiard balls)? -- PBS (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, "billiard table" or "billiards table"  means carom billiards table.  The term is hopelessly ambiguous.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snooker Table vs Billiards table 

message: From the history of the article 
* Revision as of 10:56, 15 March 2015 SMcCandlish (Reverted to revision 650967617 by Thryduulf "Um, no, it's also popular in Spain, Italy, etc., etc."
 
@SMcCandlish: Britain and Ireland are in Western Europe. Where is your source that says  carom or carambole billiards, is popular in Western Europe and not specific countries within Western Europe. -- PBS (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No one ever made any claim that carom is popular in  in Western Europe. Let's not be silly. The English language doesn't work that way. If I say I lived in the UK that does not mean I have lived in every county of the UK. There is no source that it's only popular in France, and that's a ridiculous notion. See Five-ball, as just one example, for a carom sport popular in Italy and Spain, and see the list of world champions of three-cushion billiards, most of whom are from various Western European countries, or Asia.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I've revised the text with an accurate and reliably sourced statement that carom billiards was largely "popularized by" France, and clarified "Western Europe" to "western Continental Europe".  That should be the end of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

text: PS: This isn't the place to get into the origins of billiards, but there is no proof of where it came from, nor where pocketless vs. pocket games originated; both kinds were known throughout Europe historically.  "Sources in Europe generally ascribe the invention of the game to other European countries.  The Académie des Jeux, a French work, stated that the game appeared to have been invented in England.  The Great Soviet Encyclopedia credits the game to India or China. ..." Src:   If you go back far enough, the game bears little resemblance to either modern pocket or pocketless billiards, and was played with croquet-like hoops and pins on the table.  See Billiards and Snooker Bygones (Norman Clare, 1996, Shire Pubs., ISBN: 9780852637302) for period images illustrating pocket, pocketless, and pin billiards all over post-Mediaeval Europe. There's a lot of this also in: .  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Europe and carom billiards 

message: I undid recent changes that changed inline references of the form:
* [text] ... [more text]
to
* [text] ... [more text]
for three reasons:
# It's unnecessarily duplicative and redundant.
# The Template:Sfn footnoting system is unnecessarily complicated (as is the half-baked attempt at Harvard referencing being used in this short article for no apparent reason, but that's another matter).
# It makes the poor state of the references even worse, by inserting in the text at every citation point to this source the claim that the fact in question at that point is sourceable to  of those pages, which is false.
The present situation is that we're citing, in text, one source, and in one footnotes listign all the relevant pages.  This is poor sourcing, but better than nothing.  I've started using Template:Rp to identify specific pages for specific facts, but it will take a while to clean up the entire article to properly cite which pages it's getting what information from. Replacing every <ref> call with a call to  in the above manner is a step backward.   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it unnecessarily duplicative and redundant. I agree with your third point but using   exacerbates the problem. What is needed is someone with the source to split the page numbers up between the inline citations. the advantage of using  over ref pairs is that it automagically takes care of duplicates (one less thing to do manually).  is a change is style an unacceptable without consensus and I do not agree to it usage. -- PBS (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you give me a few days, I will attempt to clean this up with specific page numbers using sfn.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation cleanup 

message: Like many descriptions of games and sports, on Wiki and elsewhere, this article will be too obscure for beginners or other people just trying to understand the game.  For example, technical terms like 'in hand' are used without explanation, and crucial matters like how each player's 'turn' is ended are not covered at all. It will also be confusing to most people who are more familiar with snooker that an 'in-off' pot appears to score points for the perpetrator, rather than being a foul, though this is not clearly stated, and I have seen other accounts of billiards where it is said that points are awarded to the opponent. Any article of this kind should really be 'road tested' on people with no prior knowledge of the subject.2A00:23C8:7907:4B01:242F:76F9:6275:CD6E (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too obscure for beginners