Talk:Glossary of cue sports terms/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Formatting standardization

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)

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)

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

Multiple senses and Cuegloss linking

The above noun/verb consistency issue actually raises a larger one: It is getting unwieldy and is probably a disservice to readers to link to thinks like "Break" and "Rack" and "Colour ball", that have multiple disparate senses. We need a consistent way of being able to link to specific senses. I thought about doing this with <span id="something"> for each sense, but this would in jump to that sense without the term's heading even being visible, which would be a major usability problem. I'm leaning toward the idea that each major/very disparate sense needs its own heading, while related senses should be collapsed into one entry.

Illustrative quotoids

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)

Lower case lead characters

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 {{Cuegloss}} works such that to link to Glossary of cue sports terms#jump shot all that would be required is {{Cuegloss|jump shot}}, instead of {{Cuegloss|jump shot|jump shot}}. 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)

---

Split proposal

Resolved

 – No consensus for split

I propose that this article be split into Glossary of cue sports terms, for terms that pertain only to the game, its play, equipment, etc. (i.e. pool/carom/snooker jargon), and Hustling#Glossary, for terms that pertain to hustles and gambling (i.e. road hustler slang).

Some pro and con arguments I can think of are listed below, in a passage that anyone should feel free to refactor for accuracy/neutrality. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Pro

• Makes this glossary easier to source and ergo easier to fireproof against AfD, since it is easier to find sources for technical jargon, in the enormous pile of billiards rule books, magazines, and instructional manuals
• Makes this glossary more focused and unified, further proof against AfDing it incorrectly, as a supposedly unencyclopedic collection of alleged dicdefs.
• There really isn't anything particularly conceptually related between these types of terms; they just happen to coincidentally intersect at billiards. The terms in the main glossary would be sports terminology; those at Hustling would be grifting and gambling terminology.
• Some terms with multiple definitions (i.e. one for both contexts) can be split up, making referring to them with {{Cuegloss}} and {{Hustlegloss}} "cleaner" for the reader (the first and last definitions of fish and mark are good examples).
• It will reduce the increasingly unwieldy length of this glossary list
• It will add richness to the Hustling article, and give a place to expand on that, e.g. by adding entries for specific "named" hustles like "last two off" and "two brothers and a stranger", which might not really be appropriate at this glossary.
• It will allow the addition of more grifting/gambling terms to the list that would be at Hustling because they would be on-topic there, but are definitely not on topic here because they are not limited to cue sports

Con

• A few terms may need to be in both, because their "range" is ambiguous (the middle definitions of fish and mark are good examples)
• It may be hard for some editors to remember which glossary a particular term is in
• Editors who do not bother to read the glossary's lead may be unaware of the difference and add hustling terms back in
• It will take some work to hunt up all the relevant uses of {{Cuegloss}} and change them to {{Hustlegloss}}.

Comments

Resolved

 – As stated above: No consensus for split, per disagreement below.

• Support, as nominator. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

First I'm not sure that this is in any danger of being afd'd, but as glossaries go, it fits more of the criteria that have been argued (by me and you especially) make a glossary more appropriate here than at Wiktionary—maybe more than any other glossary—lots of sources, really vastly multi-linked, both incoming and outgoing, to numerous article, etc. So I don't believe that that basis for splitting needs to be considered. Sourcing is also, I think, not relevant. Everything in here should be sourceable or removable on that basis. There may be some terms that can't be sourced. Once we reach the point that most terms have sources, we will have reached the point of removing the unsourceable. (Off topic but anticipating that future event, I would say we should then remove such entries to a holding place on this talk page as they are removed).

The main problem though is that I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean by "hustling terms"; what's within the purview of the proposed split? Looking through the article I don't easily see any that are specific to hustling. There are some that are generally gambling-specific, but not an apt fit under hustling. Hustling is a very specific activity. The only terms I can think of which might fit within the narrow scope or hustling are maybe defined names of dump schemes (none of which are in the article). Do you mean entries like "stakehorse"? If so, that does not work being pigeonholed as a hustling term. The word is used generically to mean a backer for gambling. No hustling need be involved or is implied when the term is used. Other examples (and I think I'm going for some of the obvious ones here, and can't find many of those), dump and sandbag, are used all the time when no hustling per se is involved. In the APA, for instance, teams will often sandbag, but one wouldn't think of that as hustling at all because there's no hustler involved. Hmmm, I guess on the lemon is pretty hustling specific--unlike dump and sandbag, almost always used to describe a hustler plying his trade. That's one. What others are there?--Fuhghettaboutit 14:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to all of the gambling-related entries: One definition of "action", both of the "lemon" entries, "dump", "stakehorse", "sandbag", "mark" (1 sense), "fish" (1 sense), etc. The problem as I see it, especially for terms like the latter five, is that they aren't actually cue-specific terms at all (even if originating in this field), but are as you put it "generally gambling-specific", or in some cases generally con-specific, so they should come out of here. On the other hand, a glossary at Hustling (which would include very specifically pool-hustling terms of course), which was less narrowly-defined than this one, would almost certainly include such terms, and there does not appear to be any other place to put them (Glossary of gambling terms, Glossary of confidence trick terms, etc.) It's not a destructive proposal, but a reorganizational one. I think that eventually the Hustling article can be quite rich, because of all of the available material, so I don't have any fear of it the material being lost through AfD at that article either. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Some are more general gambling terms though more related to pool than any other sport, but many others are pool world only. On the lemon, lemonade stroke, gapper, go off, have the nuts, these are all, as for as I know, only pool world expressions. Then take a word like heart. It is used in other places occasionally, at poker and in other gambling contexts, but it's a term used in every other sentence in a pool room. It's so ubiquitous in the pool world that you'll see it often in Billiards Digest, etc. It's far more a part of the culture than anywhere else and it wouldn't make sense to take it out (on the other hand, there's no reason whatever it couldn't exist both here and in a gambling glossary). Many of the terms are like this. I just scanned the whole glossary and, even under a liberal construction, there are only about 15 terms in the whole article that are gambling terms that aren't manifestly only pool related (i.e., I'm not counting "lemonade stroke" or the orange crush or games on the wire for obvious reasons) and of that small number, a much smaller subset are just general gambling terms. So I'm opposed. I see no reason or utility in removing a tiny group of terms that are constantly in use in the pool world. They should just be duplicated if needed somewhere else and the word split isn't really apt given the small number. Moreover, quite a few of these, if they were in a general gambling glossary, would need to be qualified as "especially in pool"; That screams for them to have an entry here.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I can see some of that (while also pointing out that Hustling is about pool, with minor mention that some of its concepts have been borrowed by things like White Men Can't Jump, so the "would need to be qualified" would probably not really apply). I still think a split would be helpful to both articles eventually, if done correctly, and I may raise the issue again next year or something, but if the two main editors of these articles aren't in agreement, and no one else is commenting, then we have a clear case of no consensus.  :-) On a side note, I strongly suspect that the Hustling article will need to split eventually, because it is mostly about pool, but there is reliable evidence that hustling culture exists elsewhere, in a related but distinct fashion, in street basketball, poker, etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuegloss entries for discussion (resolved)

IMPORTANT: Update extant links if entry renamed!

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)

I've already done this with the recent change of Stake/stakehorse to Stake. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

---

On the snap, on the break

Resolved

 – Only one person was in favor of an "on the break" entry, then changed their mind.

On the snap and on the break are not synonymous at all. The first is a very common expression, "wow, he made it on the snap" or "come on baby, on the snap!". "On the break" is just a sentence fragment; never heard is used as an expression at all. See TIEOB entry forsnap, page 217, for sourcing. In fact there's a pool league website named after the expression: http://www.onthesnap.com/--Fuhghettaboutit 13:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Not so sure. Your first example is "just a sentence fragment", and precisely synonymous with "on the break" as commonly used. I would concur that just by itself "On the snap!" is a special interjectory usage. (I would theorize that TCoM actually invented that usage, and that it is in real use today only because of the memetic power of the movie. I actually have heard "Yeah! On the break!" (after the fact) at league matches, but I'll concede that it's rather rare (mostly it'll just be hoots and hollers, frankly. >;-)

Proposal: Fork the definition into two entries, one for O.t.b. almost as-is, and have the O.t.s. one have two senses:

1. By itself (or prefaced by "Do it", etc.), an interjection exhorting the shooter to pocket the money ball, on the break
2. As a general phrase, same as on the break.

That code's just copy-pastable after removal of the leading :'s. If you're agreeable. All that would be needed beyond that would be a See also xref from O.t.b. to O.t.s. I think all the xrefs currently in the Glossary can continue to point at O.t.b., since none of them are about interjectory usage. Howzat? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not sure "on the break" has any traction as an expression and should probably be removed entirely. On the snap is constantly used. What I meant by sentence fragment is that, whereas on the snap is a saying, the other appears to be just a statement, i.e, "he made the nine ball 'on the break,'" and not a defined phrase. I have never heard it used alone. If someone made the nine on the break and screamed "on the break!" I think most people would know what the person meant but would cock their heads in puzzlement at the unfamiliar expression. By contrast, on the snap, just those three words, has a set meaning every pool bum knowns.

You may be right that The Color of Money popularized the expression, but so what? That's how language works. Whatever its origin, it has: a pool league named after it as noted above; a video using it in context[1], a magazine named after it On the Snap Magazine (see halfway down the page) as well as an ezine [2]; a pool room named after it [3], two billiard supply warehouses named after it [4], [5]; multiple mentions in books on the sport [6] and so on. 15,300 google hits for a targeted search [7], most using it as an expression. While the same search with on the break returns huge results [8], look at those results. Not one I see in the first few pages of links is using it as an expression, but just as part of a sentence. Finally, TIEOB has no mention of on the break but defines on the snap as I noted in my earlier post; so too does the glossary at [spam removed]. So I ask you: Can you find any source using on the break as a defined expression?--Fuhghettaboutit 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries; I can ramble myself, and then some. My counter-arguments, to the extent I want to make any at all, are a) I actually incredibly rarely hear "on the snap" (in my crowd, if you said that people would laugh and tell you to quit watching Paul Newman movies so much); I do concede that it is in actual use as an interjection, and that it certainly predates TCoM. b) As noted earlier, I can anecdotally confirm that "on the break" is actually used the same way, at least after the fact. I've been on something like a dozen league teams in 5 or 6 different leagues in three major cities, and all of them have their own quirks; but ejaculatory comments like "YES! On the break!" at the advent of an 8 ball break I have heard in more than one of these leagues; again it's not overwhelmingly common, but not nonexistent either. c) I wasn't meaning to imply that it was somehow invalid just because popularized by TCoM; just saying it was, for the hell of it. d) I don't have any citable sources for usage of "on the break" as an interjection, which is why I suggested the entry be forked into one (single) entry for OtB, and a (dual) entry for OtS, with only OtS mentioning the interjectory/exhortatory usage. d) All that said, I can live with removal of OtB entirely, though would keep all the xrefs to it, and just change them to refer to OtS, just for kicks (no pun intended). e) That said, I'd prefer to keep OtB, because it is a term of art; we do not say "as a result of the break shot", we say "on the break", which without definition is potentially confusing. So, in conclusion, f) I prefer my suggestion above (with the sample code) but won't cry like a baby or anything if you disagree, and won't revert whatever edit you prefer. :-) PS: g) If this is the only one of the zillion edits of mine in the last several days that's raised any hackles, I'm both pleasantly surprised and (probably) relieved (I say "probably" because it's possible that the silence doesn't equal assent but simply a delay in noticing what I mangled. Heh.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes/no/maybe? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ping? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Lost this thread, just rediscovered. I am continuing with sourcing (and hope to have a surce for every definition soon). Added back in on the snap with addiitonal sources. Can't find any sources for on the break as a defined expression. If found, let's add it in as a separate definition.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Unresolved: Still nothing done with "on the break" one way or another, despite the frequency with which this phrase is used in our articles.

I lean toward continuing to just do "...if pocketed on the break" in articles; any objections? I felt strongly several months ago that "on the break" should have an entry, but have now reversed my thoughts on this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Carom, carambole

Resolved

 – Four meanings are now covered, though some need individual sourcing

Latest round of changes: All really good stuff. Only one concern from my quarter: I think we've lost some clarity on carom/carambole, because there are two senses (I know of) in this field for the word, (caroming c.b. off an o.b., as in "carom angle", and caroming c.b. off an o.b. to strike another ball), and possibly a third (to score a point in a carom billiards game, though I think that might have been a confusion with "billiard", sense #something). The dictionary.com definition, of the word as used in English generally, seems to be to broad. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Be bold!--Fuhghettaboutit

Well, in this case, my version of being bold would be to simply revert it to what it originally said. I assume there was a rationale for the changes you made that I'm not grokking, which is why I brought it up here. I figure we can come to a compromise version. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I like Heinlein but I'm not grokking your response. The definition was unsourced, bare-bones, there was no entry for carombole and it had a dubious tag. Add in those definitions you think are missing, but remember that the ultimate goal, as with all articles, is to source each and every entry. Right now we're still loosely adding and tweaking based mostly on our specialized knowledge. Do you seriously believe the prior entry has not been vastly improved? That I don't get.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll go look again; maybe I was sleepy or something. ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to do anything about this, if anything needs to be done. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Professional foul

Resolved

 – Added, but needs a source.

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)

• I introduced the term on the miss page, as a generic term describing how any experienced player of a sport sometimes deliberately risks accepting a penalty for longer-term gain. It is also common in sports such as soccer, for example, where a defender may deliberately get sent off by fouling a player clean through on goal if that's the only way he can prevent the score. In cue sports circles I have heard the term used most commonly in UK 8-ball, where such shots are legal and commonly played in the world rules format, but like for the concerns regarding doubles and Scotch doubles, it's probably not specific enough to cue sports. Kris 09:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

  I'm very surprised about that. Kris 21:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Cross rake" not a valid term

Resolved

 – No opposition to deletion.

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)

Doubles

Resolved

 – Added.

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)
• 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)

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

Force-follow, force-draw

Resolved

 – Added.

I had added the terms force-follow, and force draw, which are extremes of the respective english applied to the cue. It is very important not to just cowboy edits to a page...research it firt to see if it is a true term first.[9] [--anon.]

Gambling and other entries not billiards-specific

Resolved

 – Consensus to avoid adding generic words; no consensus to remove ones that have generic related meanings but context-specific nuances here.

This is already admissibly a huge article, but informative, and I wouldn't have it any other way. However I do think there are several entries that don't need to be here. I'm talking about the entries that aren't cue sport-specific, especially (but not exclusively) all the gambling-oriented ones, that I hear all the time in affiliation to loads of sports, not just pool and snooker. I'm talking about the following: action; business; chasing one's money; choke; freeze up; fundamentals; game (for which a similar explanatory non-specificity is given); gapper; go off; green (sense 4); handicapping (why present participle by the way?); heart; let out; mark; round; rubber match; seeding; session; stake; sweaters.

Just my thoughts. Kris 00:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Many of the gambling ones originated with billiards. Action and green are needed in the generic but relevant senses (gambling, money, respectively), concisely, because they disambiguate the other billiards-related uses that are billiards-specific (sidespin, cloth, respectively). If we leave them out, the glossary will be telling people that "I've got a lot of green on this game of nine-ball" means "I've got a lot of cloth on this game of nine-ball", which isn't acceptable. Some terms like choke and stake(horse) may be used in other contexts and may (or may not) even originate outside the game, but they are not everyday terms, and are used so frequently in this context that they probably need to remain here (as opposed to, say, "bet"; it's common in the context but everyone knows what that means. Fundamentals (the entry for which may be deficient in this regard), handicap (yes it should be renamed), round, and game are not defined here in their general sense (other than to DAB from the other meanings also given in their entries), but rather in their billiards-specific narrower senses. And so on.

I think they need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. I would be opposed to adding even-more-general terms. The list of questionable ones is pretty short, and I think most of them are here for plausible reasons (but not unquestionable ones).

— SMcCandlish [talk][cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. How could we have a billiards glossary, for example, without action? It may be used in other contexts to refer to gambling but it actually has a more nunanced and broad usage in pool culture. Fundamentals is even more specific to pool culture. It has a very specific meaning that every pool player (at least in the northeast US knows, though pool magazines use it in the same way so I think it's not limited to this region). While it shares a vernacular underpinning with its usage in other contexts ("he needs to work on his fundamentals if he wants to get better at Tennis") in pool it is not used just as a descriptive word but as a defined thing; it is cue-sport specific--Fuhghettaboutit 06:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree partially. Maybe certain gambling terms and terms commonly used elsewhere but defined within pool-hall use parameters do have their place, if they're so common in American pool halls – that must be another geographic thing. In which case perhaps some annotation explaining as such would be appropriate for these entries. I really don't agree with the disambiguation argument for entries such as green (money). Are you saying we should also define it as a colour, a term for a lack of experience, etc.? So if someone says "Snooker tables are normally green," or "As far as competitive pool experience goes, I'm pretty green," people don't get 'confused' that they're saying "Snooker tables are cloth," or "...I'm pretty cloth"? The inherent essence of that argument states the very fact many entries have more than one definition would lead to confusion in the same way. There should be a certain amount of trust in people not to be so stupid, without having to cover all generic definitions for things that happen to get mentioned in pool halls as well as many other places. Admittedly, "green" is probably the only sense that does this at the moment, but it sets the precedent for a potentially endless number of similar disambiguating senses. Kris 18:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but would argue that green in particular is special case, and the fact that it is the only one (at least the only one either of us can think of) after all this time suggests that no one is treating it as a precendent for silliness. "Green" is used in both senses frequently in (American - non-US money is usually not green) pool, and is even behind the title of The Color of Money, the most popular pool movie of all time (it is a ref. to both the currency and the color of the cloth). I.e., it's just a weird case. The film (and underlying book) are in essence a WP:RS that the entry belongs here. That said, I'm not going to cry like a big baby if it's deleted, I just think it's actually worth keeping in this unique instance, and would almost certainly argue against superficially similar but less important and unusual entries being added, e.g. adding entries for "flirting and the pursuit of sex" and "fighting" under "Action", even though pool halls are pretty noteworthy for both, and the term is certainly often used to mean either in one context or another. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, I've got to spend a week or two on a pool playing holiday in the US I think. OK then we'll let this one stay in. Kris 22:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the "upscale billiards parlors" are basically just singles bars with pool tables. The saddest one I've seen was the Hollywood Billiards in San Francisco (I think it was formerly associated with the original in Hollywood, but hasn't been for years). Full of gorgeous turn-of-the-last-century Brunswick antique tables, including some ten-footers. I went in there one day and half of them were gone, to make room for a dance floor. I think I cried. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Inning

Resolved

 – Suggested more generalized edit was performed.

Five-pins exception: I'd argue to restore that. It does no harm, we make all sorts of game-specific comments throughout the glossary, the exception is unusual (thus noteworthy) and the actual UMB rules use the term "inning" so the Cuegloss link from that article to this entry will be confusing. It could be genericized though; there are a few other games that use the one-shot-per-inning rule, such as killer (with the exception of the break inning, which may be either 1 or 2 shots). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you make it a little less of a solo exception, implying it's the only one and more of an example? It also struck me as odd because it's not exactly an exception. The prior sentence says usually ending in... so it didn't feel right. Maybe something along the lines of: "However, in some games, such as five-pins and _____, players' turns at the table are always limited to one inning, regardless of the intent and result of shots made."--Fuhghettaboutit 21:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. But I think the overall definition may be wrong, since it say it is a player's turn at the table, when I think it is really all players' turns at the table. That is, a match consists of all rounds consists of all games/frames consists of all innings, consists of all turns/visits. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›

"Lag" section too longwinded

Resolved

And the entry for "lag" is way too big for a glossary. Kris 00:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Agree.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Unresolved: No one's done anything about it yet. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: This entry is no longer longwinded, so I'm marking this "resolved".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Long bank

Resolved

 – Unopposed addition

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)

Maximum ⇒ Maximum break

Resolved

 – No opposition after over month, so change will be made.

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)

Scotch doubles

Resolved

 – Added.

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)
• 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)

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

Skittle

Resolved

 – Unopposed addition

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)

NB: A conforming (and disambiguating) entry for Pin was also required. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Snooker

Resolved

 – Moot.

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)

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)

Sorry, I simply didn't see it! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Point of contact

Resolved

 – Added as "contact point" with a "point of contact" anchor.

Common term. Should have a "Contact point" cross-reference. Term is used at Cling, probably others. [—Anon]

Squeeze shot, throw shot

 Deferred to Later thread opened about "squeeze shot" with two possible meanings. Squeeze shot 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)

Down-trou

Resolved

 – Sourced and unlikely to be controversial.

See Eight-ball, under Australian and NZ variants. Source: 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)

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)

Straight eight

Resolved

 – Someone made a poor attempt at explaining this here, and it was fixed.

Should this be covered here or at eight-ball? 68.35.40.113 15:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Push shot

Resolved

 – Entry corrected.

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)

Cradle cannon nurse

Resolved

 – Added.

Mentioned at Tom Reece with nowhere to link. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Done:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Black spot, etc.

Resolved

 – Entries added.

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)

Last-pocket and bank-the-8

Resolved

 – Just an FYI; entries already added.

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)

See

Resolved

 – Done

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)

I thought I added this years ago. Either I'm mistaken, or it was deleted. I'll try re-adding it. Ben414 (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Duck egg?

Resolved

 – Added to glossary, with source.

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)

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)

Added. See blank. Needed it anyway for my rewrite of George Balabushka.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Minimum total clearance

Resolved

 – Nothing further on this issue in about 8 months.

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)

Bring it up at Talk:Snooker, come back with the results? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

GENIUS!!! Never thought of that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandGrenadePins (talk • contribs) 11:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll update the text of the section to account for multi-red pots. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy rack

Resolved

 – Removed as unsourced probable nonsense; no evidence this is a real term, and we don't include terms like this anyway.

I removed this misplaced and nonencyclopedically written entry from the "Rack (verb)" entry:

1. 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(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 11:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Cling

{{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)

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)

Shoot-out?!

Resolved

 – Not a term we need to add.

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)

Hi LezFraniak. What you are referring to is the lag. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks --LezFraniak (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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)