Talk:Glossary of cue sports terms

message: Does a fluke have to have a positive outcome? In snooker a fluke can cost you a frame, and will often still be referred to as a fluke. For example, if you are 34 points behind with one red on, and you accidentally pot it, you may not be on a colour that offers enough points to still be able to win without snookers.--MartinUK (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this is certainly important. More simply, a fluke can also include the cue ball potting, or a ball potting when the player intends a snooker.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just general-English, non-cuesports-specific usage of "fluke". If there is evidence that "fluke" is commonly used this way in reference to negative outcomes in snooker (and perhaps British pool), then the entire entry should just be removed. We don't need an entry for "accident" or "unintentional" or other such terms; "fluke" had an entry here specifically because of it attested usage in reference to positive unintended outcomes in particular.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Fluke

message: A successful attempt at potting the frame ball (chiefly in snooker).
:*Maybe too obvious?  The -winner convention is used pretty broadly in sports (game-winner, match-winning point, etc).  Could probably be worked into #Game ball though, as alt. term? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S.: See Talk:Stephen Hendry; the article there uses the phrasing "deciding frame" instead, and it did generate some confusion (i.e. a Cuegloss entry and link to it would be warranted).  Because this terminology takes multiple forms, I think it would be better to explain these usages briefly under frame, game, etc., rather than attempt to create new entries for every possible usage of this sort (which could be many - "frame-ender", "match-sealing shot", etc., etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree it's an obvious compound noun, but it is an exceptionally common term in BBC snooker commentary. This may, of course, just be because of the general vocabulary engendered by snooker commentators as a result of their being a close-knit group, but this in turn influences most of the players I know to adopt the terminology, and presumably such subsequent proliferation occurs everywhere. I have no strong inclination for its inclusion, however, and acknowledge its dubiety. Kris 09:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I don't dispute its usage, I'm hard pressed to see how to really add this, though, because of the variety of usage.  Either we'd need a bunch of near-identical entries for "frame-winner", "game-winner", "match-winner", "frame-ender", ... "frame-stealer" ... "frame-decider", etc., etc., or a near-identical explanatory note about such usages added to #Frame, #Game, #Round, and #Match. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 19:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yeah you're probably right. In my initial proposed definition I omitted to describe the broader sense of usage for the term, in being a key shot in a frame that sets up a taken frame-winning chance, like perhaps developing an awkward ball – not necessarily potting the frame ball. But all the same, several descriptive synonyms potentially exist. I think frame-winner might be the most commonly quoted, certainly in snooker commentary, but no biggie if it's left out. Kris 21:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * A defn. that narrow that might be good after all, with "Frame-winner" or "Frame-winning" being the heading, and maybe a few variants in Also... (if you think they might likely be sourceable; we really do need to start sourcing more of these things...) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Not being funny, but how would you go about sourcing something you consistently hear in TV commentary? Just stating the specific show isn't good enough, because as far as the third person is concerned, it could be an isolated use of improvised language. The majority of idiomatic speech in cue sports is too current and undocumented in official, sourceable literature. I fully appreciate the need for proper referencing, since I am involved in the production of primary literature with my PhD, but it presents a problem to me where this sort of thing is concerned with cue sports vernacular. I'm not questioning the importance of it, I'd just like some boundaries of acceptability set in this regard, which would have to be looser than, say, a published paper or a textbook. Kris 23:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Template:Cite episode can be used to source such things. I've taken extensive notes from several recent broadcasts and will be integrating such sourcing as time permits. I think it is a bit of a judgement call; I do not think that some random term, like "game-clincher" should be added to this glossary just because it can be sourced in this way that some random announcer used that phrase, once.  Rather, I think we need to rely on our experience to pre-identify notable terms that are actually in real-word use, and then we can use properly cited sport commentator usage as evidence that it is not "original research" (though of course print sources are preferable).  I feel that the thought process mirrors the horse-before-the-cart processes of article writing in general: The community as a whole eschews creating articles for presumptively non-notable subjects and then trying desperately to demonstrate notability after the article has been slapped with a speedy deletion or WP:AfD tag; rather, we try to identify actually a notable topic, gather material and write a good article about it, or at least a sourced stub that immediately establishes the notability of the subject.  All that said, it seems like "frame-winner" or "frame-winning" could be notable enough for this treatment, if you're certain that this phrase is used way more than other, similar phrases.  I guess it wouldn't be too awkward to note that the format of the term is sometimes altered for "colour" ("frame-taker", etc.), or used in broader contexts ("match-winner"), without having to go and add separate entries for each.  If this were Wiktionary we would add separate entries for each, but as a big debate on the talk page expounds, we're not on Wiktionary. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Frame-winner

message: A term applied to a ball that is safe, used especially in snooker to describe the position of a colour ball that would otherwise be useful to have on its spot.
:* Sounds like a good one.  Makes me wonder if this term originated with snooker, though I doubt it; sounds military. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a navy term, the more formal term for a ship being mothballed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of commission

message: The cushion profile, e.g. K-66.  Don't have a proposed definition written out, just think it needs to be added in some form; see usage at Billiards table#Cushions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)›
:Unresolved: No opposition, but no definition yet. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 21:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Profile

message: On the other hand I would remove redundant "additional parts of speech" entries, including "Be in stroke", "Catch a stroke" ("catch" is an interesting enough idiom it's worth briefly mentioning under "Stroke"), "Having the cue ball on a string" (move it to "On a string";  is way too long), "Stroke, catch a" (redundant, esp. after "catch" mentioned in "Stroke".  Also, we should probably just merge "On the lemonade" and "Lemonade stroke" into a single "Lemonade" entry; I thought about doing that months ago, and feel even more strongly about it now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 00:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like "on a string" and certainly "be" can come out of "be in stroke" but "in stroke" and catch or caught a stroke are really common independent expressions and usages. Nevertheless, at least stroke, as that word is defined in billiards usage, is central to these expressions. No such relationship is true of lemonade, which has no relationship with pool except by its use in the two stock expressions  "on the lemon/ade" and "lemonade stroke."  I would analogize it to combining dictionary entries for "cat's meow" and "cat bird seat" into an entry for "cat", which would make no sense at all.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Unresolved: Nothing's been done about the ones to be renamed; discussion stalled, so consensus on lemon entries is in limbo. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 21:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've sat on this one for many months, and am still skeptical on the lemonade entries; they are clearly directly related, and I do actually think both of the cat expressions you mention should be at Cat#In expressions or a List of expressions mentioning cats or something to that effect.  They aren't notable topics in and of themselves (though "catbird seat" would also be covered in the article about the notable story the phrase originated in).  Not a huge deal. But I'm not sure I lean toward my former position either. Just, basically, renewing the idea that this one is unresolved, so it doesn't get archived without closure.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 10:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further note: most of these locution-variant entries can be combined and simply given anchors at the entry they are merged into.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant "diff. parts of speech" entries

message: I was watching a 9-ball match today and heard a couple of American commentators use the term "tickie-tick" to describe a shot much like "tickie" already in the glossary. They even discussed where they thought the name came from but didn't know. They were describing a kick/carom whereby the cue ball hits one rail, bounces off the 1 ball, potting the 3 ball over the corner. Is there a subtle difference here, adding the "tick" in the case of potting a ball instead of just rebounding back to the last rail? Kris 17:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the "tick" at the end is just onomatopoeia for the contact with the three ball.  "Tickie-tick" should probably be added to the glossary as a new entry.  What are the details of the show (incl. the commentators if possible), so we can use that as the source citation? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers SMcCandlish, I appreciate the onomatopoeic properties of the term, as well as its assonant and alliterative qualities (I appreciate that perhaps my sarcasm regarding the commentators' lack of knowledge may have passed unnoticed – but thanks for the extra elucidation, I'm sure many others reading this will appreciate it). The main part of my inquiry was about the potential dichotomy between such a shot resulting in a pot in a 9-ball/American 8-ball game, and just sending the cue ball back to the last rail in a carom game (as specifically stated in the current definition). I assume they're just synonymous then, in which case I would advise editing the definition to be more sensu lato. Korea's WPBA 9-ball Champion Ga-Young Kim edged China's Xiaoting Pan 7-6 in the final of the Carolina Women's Billiard Classic. The event took place from February 21-25 at the Gateway Convention Center, Rocky Mount, North Carolina, USA. This was the first event of the WPBA season. The commentators were "The Striking Viking" Ewa Mataya Laurance and her husband Mitch Laurance. They were clearly working for an American TV channel but it appeared on the UK's own Sky Sports Xtra channel between the hours of 1300-1400 local time (that's GMT) on April 4, 2007. Hope that helps you. Kris 23:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard the phrase (which doesn't mean anything necessarily), but I can tell you that tickie is incredibly common in carom billiards usage, and Mitch Laurence is not a player. Though he is getting better after years of fumbling commentary, he still makes tons of terminology mistakes. When he started he was literally a blank slate. They've been doing this for going on twenty years on ESPN—pairing a well-known professional with not just an amateur, but someone who has no familiarity—I've never understood it. Mitch is just the last in a long series of such ciphers. They had some guy, Kevin Cusack I think, and two others in years past. I guess they figure they will be good at asking basic questions of the professional that people at home might be thinking, that someone already experienced would not. The result, though, has been them having nothing to offer and having to often be corrected. You can sometimes hear Allen Hopkins getting slightly annoyed and restraining himself from correcting too much Anyway, was there a clear definition given? It would need independent attribution otherwise.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the commentary Mitch asked Ewa what it meant, after she first used the term to described the shot. I'd assume she knew what she was talking about. It's probably just like SMcCandlish said – just a bit of onomatopoeia extending an established term. All the same, it was the "Striking Viking" who used the term, a legend of the WPBA, so the reference shouldn't be taken lightly, even if Mitch Laurance is just a charismatic layperson employed as a voice on some low-budget coverage of a low-popularity event. Kris 00:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, what the show/event being televised? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it was the final of the Carolina Women's Billiard Classic. The show was just called "Women's Pool" on Sky Sports Xtra, but it was an ESPN show from America they were showing. Kris 12:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now seen it too, and the definition was clear: it's a tickie-to-combo. PS: I recind what I said above about a new entry; it should just be mentioned in the  entry, and sourced to the show and commentator with . — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 03:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tickie-tick 

message: This seems related to "professional side of the pocket".  I removed this from another article's "In popular culture" section, because it was way off-topic there, but these terms could be good additions here, if a source can be found:
Another term widely used amongst informal players of pool is "amatuer mistake." The term relates to the event where the player is set up for an easy shot to pot a ball on the table, but follows the coloured ball into the pocket with the cue ball. The event is described so, due to the event appearing as though the player is very unexperienced and an amatuer of the game.
The reverse-side is called a "professional mistake," where the player missess an easily set up coloured ball and pots the cue ball into the pocket intended for the coloured ball. The term uses sarcasm to be a derogatory statement against the player, as they resemble no sign of a professional player's ability.
This is obviously UK English, and it also brings to mind another discussion further up, about the phrase "professional foul".  I would like to combine all of these terms into one entry if possible, but at near-midnight in my time zone, I'm having a hard time thinking of a good entry title and structure.  I'm thinking we need an entry for "professional" and "amateur" and several bulleted sub-entries for different usages.  Or I may be smokin' crack. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Professional and amateur mistake 

message: I think these should be covered.  The terms are coming up more and more in event articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 06:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternating break, winner-breaks

message: Very common term; I don't have a proposed definition right this instant, but it should be easy, and easily multi-sourceable. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 17:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "blocking ball" is used in several entries but without a link or definition.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Blocking ball, also blocker

message: I think that , definition 2 is too general-parlance and not billiards-specific enough to be in the glossary.  There's even a popular TV show, The Wire named for this form of grapevine (in part; it's also a reference to the wearing of recording equipment for police purposes, wiretapping, and walking a thin line or being under pressure). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wire, dfn. 2

message: The mention of Irish standard pool there probably needs to be replaced by a reference to blackball, but needs to be sourced to make sure that is correct.  I.s.p. is slated for merger with b.b. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 21:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Three-foul rule

message: The original, faulty entry read:
:</nowiki>A type of combination that can be played when the second object ball is frozen to the first and lined up at one of the knuckles of the target pocket. It can normally be pocketed by hitting the first object ball on the same side as the knuckle and second object ball at a medium to hard pace. It is a somewhat counterintuitive shot because if there is the slightest gap between the two object balls the only way to pocket the second would be to hit the opposite side. The phenomenon occurs as a result of throw.</nowiki>
This was replaced with a second meaning, sourced, but I think that something legit was being discussed in the original; I'm preserving it here until it can be sourced and better explained. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 04:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Squeeze shot

message: Need entries for the two-pot rule and three-pot rule, which are English billiards terms; they are showing up in articles, with nowhere to link to. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Two-pot rule" entry exists.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Two-pot rule, three-pot rule, all-in, spot-barred

message: I've restored this entry, since it's clearly a real and spreading phenomenon (I've even heard of it on US/Canadian east coast as a college kids thing, when I was out there.)  The film is a valid source; sources aren't invalidated because of their medium.  I know you think the practice is silly (I agree!), but it's obviously a real phenomenon related to pool (and apparently darts as well).  All you need do is Google "downtrou pool -swimming", ' "down-trou" pool -swimming", "pantsed pool -swimming", etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 13:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And someone's removed it again the basis that they think it's "stupid". Of course it's stupid; that's irrelevant. And the removal of it broke at least one other entry and probably incoming links (I've removed the pantsed entry that got broken). This has been discussed multiple times on this talk page. It is NOT only from one movie, but is a mostly student-related practice attested also in the UK and Canada, and there are other sources available for it if you want to find and add them. It's a well-enough attested pool-related (obviously not -pool-related) term users will look for. It should be re-added with some additional sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Down-trou (again) 

message: There was an entry for this Australian variant, but it has been removed pending sources. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 13:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pantsed

message: There was an entry for this English variant, but it has been removed pending sources. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 13:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Seven-balled

message: In Scotland "pantsed" is known as "grannied" (as in "my granny could do better"), according to a recent (reverted) edit to Eight-ball.  It was further claimed that the Scottish "down-trou" equivalent was for the (male) loser to be made to put their scrotum on the table.  That seems a bit far-fetched, given how conservative Scotland is generally, except in downtown Glasgow and Edinburgh.  I support the removal of these items absent any sources for them, but note them here for further potential research and sourcing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 14:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Grannied

message: Unexplained term "catch-up" ("The two players played straight pool, 1,000-point catch-up at 200 points per block, for five nights.") at :Larry Lisciotti. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 14:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Catch-up

message: Unexplained term "block" ("The two players played straight pool, 1,000-point catch-up at 200 points per block, for five nights.") at :Larry Lisciotti. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 14:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Block

message: Ran across this in one article or another; I can't remember where. It may have been a snooker term, or maybe a term from carom. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third ball

message: The "cheese" or "cheese shot" is pocketing the 9 ball early (and legally) in a game of nine-ball, or (by extension) pocketing the money ball in similar manner in nine-ball-related games such as six-ball. E.g., "I took the cheese shot", and "he could have made the 2 clean, but missed because he tried to use it for the cheese and that combo was too hard", or "I love cheese!".  I hear this constantly in BCA nine-ball (it is so commonly understood that my team name is Cheesecutters, and everyone gets the silly double-entendre). I do not hear it so far in APA or VNEA nine-ball (other than from also-BCA players), nor have I found any pro or other non-BCA references for it. Nor any official BCA reference for that matter. I'm fairly certain this will eventually be sourceable and should be added, as it is definitely a real term, even if not universal. The 9 ball itself is sometimes also referred to as the cheese or cheese ball (thus my team name; cf. ), and occasionally it also refers to pocketing the 9 normally, but the term most often applies to winning the game early with a combo, kiss, or carom. My feeling is that the term derives from the yellow of the 9 ball, but that is just a guess and I can't source it yet. I have not encountered "cheesy" used adjectivally except once as a joke ("I'd call that a cheesy shot! Heh.") — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 00:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cheese

message: What do you think of "rubber match" (= hill-hill)? I think that term was borrowed from baseball, but I'm not sure.  I hear it several times per week in APA play, but haven't found any sources yet for its applicability to pool. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently it's borrowed from boxing. See this and Rubber match. I've heard it used for many years and never knew its origin (I played APA myself many moons ago...). There is some ambiguity though. People use it the same as hill-hill in my experience but, thinking about it now, it really should be rubber "game" even though it isn't. The normal usage in other sports is apparently for a deciding match, and apparently always the third in a best two out of three situation. I was just looking for a source and even found it used in that manner for pool. See here and here, and for snooker, see here. I wasn't able to find a reliable source that uses it in the manner I, and I think you, know it. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has added it, but without a source, so that needs fixing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Rubber match, rubber game

message: Pretty obvious addition to make. The term appears in this article itself, as well as at :2005 Premier League Snooker (2004/05) and others. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 06:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "shot clock" is mentioned in the "stall" entry, but without link/explanation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Shot clock

message: Here's some APA terms that might be sourceable reliably somewhere. They are commonly seen in APA-dominated Web forums, e.g. http://www.facebook.com/groups/130357857701 (you may need to be logged into Facebook to see that). While I play APA sometimes, I'm not a huge fan of their weird rules. Nevertheless, they are the largest league in the world, so their unique terminology is presumably notable.
*SL: Skill level, the player's handicap (usually between 2 and 8, though 1 and 9 are possible)
*To throw off [on]: To pit a low skill level player against a high skill level player, for handicap balancing purposes at the whole-team level. Two common phrasings: "to throw off on a 7 with a 2", and "to throw off our 2 on their 7". The 6- or 7-ranked player may be said to have been "thrown off [on]", while the 2 or 3 is "thrown up" (a phrase that is considered very tongue-in-cheek for obvious reasons).
*Heads-up: Evenly matched in skill level (handicap)
*Hole: A player's position in the lineup that match; used with ordinal or cardinal numbers, e.g. "second hole", "five hole".
*Leadoff: The first player in a team's lineup that match (i.e., the one hole or first hole).
*To put up: Nominate the next player to play from a team's roster; the loser of the toss puts up first, as it gives the toss-winner the advantage of getting to strategically select who to pit against the toss-loser's leadoff. The phrase can be used with an object (e.g. "We're putting up Sam next.") or without, as already illustrated.
*To match up: Compare skill levels and strategically decide who to put up (noun: match-up).
There are lots of others. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 06:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure you can source any of the others but heads-up is common parlance adopted by the APA, not the other way around I don't think.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah so. I hadn't encountered it (or the others) in VNEA, BCA, etc. (But then again non-APA leagues spend much less time handwringing over statistics and just play.) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't remember this but it's already in the glossary (though un-hyphenated, and I think you're right that it should be). I actually added it at this revision back before this was split to here from cue sports.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: APA terminology

message: This glossary is exhaustive nowadays, I was a reasonable contributor a while ago, before I lost interest. I just had a few afterthoughts though, even though I don't really care about Wikipedia any more. Just wondering, has it been meaningfully updated since the recent revelations of snooker, since Barry Hearn got involved? Things like shot-clock (= timer), shoot-out (when it goes to a decider in the Premier League of Snooker), a new usage of the lag (in the Premier League shoot-out), etc. Also, what about the more grammatical terms that are paradigmatic in the commentary on the game, but not necessarily formally defined terms, like "loose" meaning when a red ball is pottable as opposed to in the pack, "on" meaning a ball is pottable (distinct from the specific meaning of "ball-on"), etc. And phrases like "where's the cue-ball going?" meaning they think it's going in the pocket. Kris (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd need some sources, is the issue. They sound like good additions otherwise. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "#Shot clock" is its own thread above. "Shoot-out" seems to be general sports terminology; addressed at Talk:Glossary of cue sports terms/Archive 1#Shoot-out?! "Loose" has not been addresed yet. "On" is covered at the "ball-on" entry, and the #on anchor (e.g. ) goes to it. "Where's the cue-ball going?" is also said in American English around pool games, though it might be a challenge to source it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent snooker omissions 

message: Often heard this term mentioned by Snooker commentators, what does it mean ? GrahamHardy (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Graham. A blind pocket refers to when you are attempting to shoot a cut shot (a shot with a lot of angle) at a pocket and because of where the cue and the object ball are and how steep the cut is, when you aim your cue ball at the spot on the ball you need to hit, the direction your eyes are pointing when looking from cue ball to object ball does not have the pocket in view (except for peripheral vision). Does that help? This is just from my knowledge of the expression, how it's used, and not from any source. We can add it if a good source is available (I just looked and the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Pool and Billiards has no definition for it).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blind pocket 

message: Unless it appears under another name, I couldn't see any reference to this reasonably common type of safety shot in snooker, where the cue ball is played slowly up the table in order to "dump" it on the (usually) top cushion and leave the object ball safe.  Often mentioned as a speciality of Cliff Thorburn and more recently popularised by Mark Selby as per this reliable source.  Did I miss it under another name, or should it be added?  Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 19:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it could be added. I don't know how you would explain the shot. I always feel it's like a stun cocked hat shot... But is it widely used enough for it to be on a glossary? Might be a little too jargony. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've BOLDly . mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's a relatively common term and needs to be included. Nigej (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dump shot 

message: This should probably be added. Or is it already included under a different name? mgiganteus1 (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What would that even mean? A plant is the same as a combination or "combo" shot: send the cue ball into an object ball, and that first object ball into a second object ball, to pot/pocket (or do something otherwise desirable, like strategically position) the second object ball. Or, in fancy shooting, it might involve three or more object balls in succession. What is an alleged "reverse" of that? To send the cue ball into a first object ball to have the cue ball go off of it into a second object ball and have a desired effect (pot or position) on the second object ball is a cannon AKA carom AKA carambole. To send the cue ball into a first object ball, and have something desirable (pot or position) happen to the first object ball by having it careen into a second object ball, is a kiss shot (I don't know if there's a chiefly-British alternative name for that); basically a plant/combo except the first object ball is the one that the shooter is trying to pot/position not the second (or last) one. But none of these is literally "reversing" a plant/combination. If the term's in use, finding a YouTube video of British pool or snooker footage where the term gets clearly used in context would probably help.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't speak to other cue sports, but this is definitely a term used in snooker. Here's John Parrott explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w2Rwj1SdBQ mgiganteus1 (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a term in pool, it's something in snooker where you hit the wrong side of a plant for it to squeeze the second ball. Only happens when the balls are almost touching. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See also #Squeeze shot above for issues relating that  term.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverse plant  

message: Alsos sometimes written foul-and-a-miss, and there are verbal constructions like fouled and missed. This is snooker-specific jargon, with a whole section at Rules of snooker#Foul and a miss.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foul and a miss 

message: US and UK English, respectively. Bar/pub pool terminology for continuing to play against a new opponent after winning at a coin-operated table.  Anchors would be needed for winner-keeps-the-table, winner stays, keep the table, stay on, winner-stays-on, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winner keeps the table, winner stays on 

message: This is a shot type making intentional use of the  effect. This term can easily be sourced to Byrne and probably other books.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Throw shot 

message: A type of foul in professional (and some but not most) amateur play, in which the player accidentally touches a ball with hand, cue shaft, bridge stick, clothing, long hair, etc. while setting up their shot or while balls are in motion. Term is used (with a source, I think) in Straight pool.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Touched ball, touched-ball foul 

message: See also:
Illustrated Principles of Pool and Billiards expanded online glossary
[The previously unsigned comment was added to the article itself by , 16:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be interesting.  It's webby nature might make some question its reliability, but it isn't really a blog, and is put together by a physics professor, as I recall. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 21:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually a reliable source; it's the online supplement to a well-accepted book by the same author.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested new reference

message: In complex cases like this:
:
we could do this:
:
as  displays its first parameter and anchors all the others (as well as the first). That is technically one character longer, but it's simpler in complexity level.
This would be actually more concise as well, with maybe less clarity:
:
Does anyone really care? The last of these would be kind of a hassle to implement, but would reduce the "footprint" of the page a little.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We could totally make this change with AWB, but is this article really that large? One of those things if you want to make the change you can, but I don't think it is necessary Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I ended up removing the redundant  code, since it served no purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor code simplification