Talk:Snooker

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Snooker variants

Unresolved

 – Consensus has been to put them in a variants section, but it remains undeveloped.

Volunteer snooker

Suite101.com says that "Volunteer Snooker is a variation of snooker that was alive and popular in the late 1950's". www.suite101.com/article.cfm/cue_sports/24540 Якушев Илья (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This needs its own Volunteer snooker article, or a section here. Or see below for third option. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Other variants

The small book "Snooker Games" by Mike Stooke (1988, ISBN 9780951297704) documents more snooker variations, "chase the green", "crash" and "cricket", that either need articles or should have short coverage here. Or maybe there should be a Variants of snooker article with all of these as well as volunteer snooker, sinuca Brasileira, etc. Needs to be resolved one of these three ways. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If there are many variants of the game described in this book, maybe best resolve will be to write a Variants of snooker article. And to write there what of these variants are the most popular--Якушев Илья (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Snookerpool

Text added by IP: Snookerpool is also a commonly played variant especially within the casual or amateur community, which is full snooker played on a standard 9-ball table; the larger pockets make shots somewhat easier and players are able to torch the cueball into the pack much more easily for a better spread of reds. The edit was reverted as unsourced. I still think there might be something in this so I've appealed to the IP on their Talk page for clarification. But without any sources, there's not really a lot we can do with it. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure there are people who call it that, but I've searched a lot, and they almost always say it's just an old name for snooker. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed as I could find no evidence of notability. Possibly added by someone who saw this? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Snooker/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments

What a fine article. I shall have only small comments to make.

• Sir Neville Chamberlain: Perhaps provide his dates (1856–1944) as he isn't the better-known chap of this name (and yes, I saw the footnote).
  • Wasn't sure which place this is suitible, so I added the dates to the lede. I can also add to the prose if suitible (but, there is already a note, as suggested above). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Ooty: suggest we have at least one of the city's real names in parentheses (Udagamandalam, Ootacamund).
  • Specifics added to prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• "from a pastime activity to a professional activity". Suggest "from a pastime to a professional activity".
  • I thought I'd already changed this one.  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• "United Kingdom,[22] Ireland and much of the Commonwealth," add a comma after "Ireland".
  • WP:SERIAL says you can use either a serial comma or not, so long as it is consistent. If I've used a serial elsewhwere, I'll update. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Objective: remove "Figure A" from image caption.
  • reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Equipment: I see there is already an excellent Glossary of cue sports terms. I suggest we remove all the duplication with that glossary, i.e. the equipment discussion is made not to contain a list of terms at all. I suggest that there should remain the top 2 paragraphs and the paragraph on "Cloth" (but without the heading). You might wish to keep some of the citations from the list, or move them to the Glossary article. The first word "Accessories" links to the section itself, so please remove that link too.

 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Variants: same again really; there is a right-and-proper link to Snooker variants, which should be a "Main" link, followed by a single-paragraph summary but no list in this article.

Actually, the link is simply to Category:snooker variants, and not an article, or I would have taken the section out in it's entirety. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• See also: Perhaps the Ladies World Snooker Championship deserves a short cited paragraph in the article instead of a see also link?

There is a bit that I added about women's and seniors in Governance and tournaments. It could be expanded, sure, but outside of the professional game, the women's game is barely covered. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• See also: I don't see the logic in including the 2019/2020 season here as it's in the navbar below and we certainly don't want to include all the other seasons here.

Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Image "Ronnie O'Sullivan": Suggest add "The English player ..."
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Burroughes & Watts: please wikilink.

 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Heading "Notable players": the term "notable" is a risky one as all Wikipedia subjects are by definition notable (or ripe for deletion). The intention here seems to be "The game's most famous champions" so perhaps a short heading with that sort of meaning would be better here.
  • Changed to "important". I can't think of a better names. Maybe "important figures", but they are all players, so it's a little bit more suitable Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• You might want to put a photo of the pioneering and exceptional Joe Davis in the "Famous champions" section (and left-align it).
  • I'm not a fan of left align, but adding a photo of Joe is a great idea. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Gadsby and Williams 2012: as there is just one use of this "Source" I suggest you merge it with the ref and remove the "Sources" section. You could therefore also remove the "Citations" heading.

 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• External links: Is "Cuesports club" there for good reason? It looks a bit like advertising. The "History of Billiards in Brazil" also looks somewhat misplaced; if it's notable that history should be described briefly in the article and cited to that source, but at a glance the page doesn't say a lot (so maybe remove it).

Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap, I've replied to all of the above. There's a couple things I haven't changed, as per comments above. Else, everything else is covered. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Well I think we're all done here, in record time. Like an O'Sullivan break, or something. Great work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Notes

The BACC "eventually agreed to stage the first Professional Championship of Snooker's Pool in the 1926-27 season. It was a season-long tournament; the first world championship game was between Melbourne Inman and Tom Newman at Thurston's Hall, played between November 26 and December 6, 1926 ... The final, which Davis won, was held at one of Camkin's Billiard Halls in Birmingham, and started on May 9, 1927." Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that Benny. I can see that the championship is labelled 1927 because that's when the all-important final took place, but it was actually spread over the 26/27 season. I'm thinking we can probably cover the confusion using a carefully worded footnote, which itself could carry your citation. I'll look at it later. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"During the 1880s rumours of this new game reached England, and when John Roberts went to India on one of his tours he had it in his mind to find out the rules. One evening in 1885 in Calcutta, Chamberlain was dining with the Maharajah of Cooch Behar when Roberts was introduced to him. Roberts duly brought the game back to England. It was many a long day before snooker became widely played. Not every hall nor every club could afford a snooker set of 22 balls although it was not long before the manufacturers appreciated snooker's superior commercial possibilities."

"The rules of snooker, which had been subject to many variations, were codified in when the Billiards Association and Billiards Control Club amalgamated in 1919. The drawn game was abolished when provision was made for the black to be respotted at the end of a frame if the scores were equal. The free ball was introduced to supersede the BCC rule that if a player was snookered he could have the snookering ball(s) taken up so that he could play onto the 'nearest ball playable' ... The penalty for going in-off a red was still only one, the four point minimum penalty still being a few years away. The touching ball rule was introduced in 1927."

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"Unfortunately, there are no contemporary accounts of the invention of the game, and the preceding story [i.e. about Chamberlain in India] was not related until the 1930s. No description of snooker before that time contains any mention of its genesis, and news articles concerning Chamberlain make no reference of any role he may have had in its invention."; "The game was introduced into Australia in 1887 by Frank Smith Sr." On page 229, Shamos lists the following variations, each of which have their own entry in the Encyclopedia: American Snooker, Canadian Snooker, Devil-among-the-tailors, four-handed snooker, Golf, Liability, Nine-hole snooker, Pay ball, Penalty game, Pink pool, Savile snooker, Short snooker, Snooker billiards, Snooker golf, Snooker plus, Snooker roulette, Snookerette, Volunteer snooker. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

In August 1924, Tom Dennis wrote to the BA&CC asking them to organise an open professional snooker tournament. BA&CC Secretary A. Stanley Thorn replied "The suggestion will receive consideration at an early date but it seems a little doubtful whether snooker as a spectacular game is sufficiently popular to warrant the successful promotion of such a competition."

"Camkin was also very much involved in instituting the professional snooker championship. As a proprietor of billiard halls, he knew full well how popular snooker was; and a conversation with Joe Davis, who had played snooker since his youthful days of managing billiard halls around Chesterfield, led to Davis's writing to the B.A. and C.C. drafting the conditions under which such an event could take place. The association gave their consent and issued conditions."

"It is regarded as highly unlikely that anyone will ever dominate the game to [Joe Davis'] level again" - I had a browse through Everton's 1986 book looking at pages where the index had entries for Davis, and couldn't find a suitable source for this. It's now 35 years since that book was published, so I'm not sure that it could still be used to support such a statement (unless qualified) anyway. FWIW, I believe that it is highly unlikely; and it's the sort of thing that I think Everton (who remains in awe of Davis) could have written about. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Possible snooker origins

(Just a few thoughts):

Peter Ainsworth argues that the game evolved more from the game of pyramids (called "shell-out" when more than two players were involved), rather than from the game of black pool. This is because in pyramids the players shared the same cue ball as snooker does, and the 15 reds were placed in a pyramid formation, in the same position as in modern snooker. But in black pool, no single cue ball is used, and it does not have a pack of reds. -

Ainsworth, Peter (10 October 2017). "The Origin of Snooker: The Neville Chamberlain Story" (PDF). p. 2.

Page 5 of above also gives reference to the game of pyramids and added were "the other coloured balls", and the simple rules for the game then prepared in 1882 at Ootacamund.

The following article gives 24 rules relating to "a new game called snookers". It was printed in a newspaper on 10 October 1884. Rule no.2 is interesting (at least to me anyway):

"Billiard players have been promised a new game called "Snookers", which we are assured is to supplant Pyramids and Pool ere long.

The rules are given below: ...

2. - 15 red balls are placed on the table as in "Pyramids", and four "coloured" balls shall be placed, thus:

the yellow ball on the centre of the D, the brown ball on the centre spot, the green ball on the pyramid spot at the apex of the triangle of red balls and the blue on the billiard spot. The player plays with the white ball and from the D when in hand.

The value of the balls shall be: Red 1, Yellow 2, Green 3, Brown 4, and Blue 5.... -

"A New Game of Billiards". Civil & Military Gazette. Lahore: E. A. Smedley. 10 October 1884. p. 6 – via British Newspaper Archive.

Reddog78 (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

In a letter written by Captain F. Sheldrick from Calcutta, dated 2 February 1886, he describes playing a game called "snookers" at Rangoon. It had 15 reds as above, and the Yellow, Brown, and Green in the same places as above "put on the spots up the centre of the table." But instead of the blue ball being on the billiard spot, the black ball was, as it is in snooker today. -

{{cite web |last=Ainsworth |first=Peter |url=https://snooker-forum.com/TheOriginofSnooker.pdf |title=The Origin of Snooker: The Neville Chamberlain Story |date=10 October 2017 |page=1}}

Thank you. Reddog78 (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It may not be encyclopedic (i.e., it may be WP:INDISCRIMINATE) to attempt to catalogue every minor variant of ancestral versions of the game that were informally played among some British officers in India. Not feeling strongly either way about it, just suggesting it needs consideration.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Of course I know what you mean with regards to cataloguing every minor variant of the game. I just find it interesting that's all, to compare the variants to modern snooker and find the similarities. Reddog78 (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Back in the day, when I was collecting rulebooks, I considered doing a "History of eight-ball" article that was going to cover all the rule changes over time, but gave up on it as a difficult task and of questionable "encyclopedic-ness". For snooker, it might be more pertinent to cover the origin variations, without poring over all the rule changes in the later game. But someone might disagree and want to cover all those, too. Not trying to impose my will. Just kind of asking the question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes origin variations might be better rather than rule changes. And generally all I have been typing about about above is the game of pyramids, and then different coloured balls were introduced to the reds down the centre of the table at various times. Regards. Reddog78 (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Right. Overall I lean toward it being pertinent, though I'm wondering whether the history section might not better split out to a History of snooker side article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Or it could just be summarised in the history section of this article, maybe something like:

"By 1884, four coloured balls had been added to the fifteen red balls: In the order of sequence of yellow, green, brown and blue, each ball was placed on one of the four spots down the centre of the table, beginning with the yellow on the middle of the D spot which was worth two points. And ending with the blue on the billiard (black) spot, which was worth five points. A variation was played in 1886, whereby the black took the place of the blue ball."

The only reason I quoted the 1884 rule (which by the way are the earliest rules of snooker I can find on the internet), is because I find it interesting regarding the fact that the yellow, green, brown, and blue are all each worth exactly the same amount of points that they are in today's game. And the highest numbered ball was the one on the billiard spot as it is today too.

Thank you. Reddog78 (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that is kind of interesting, actually.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Snooker cue, not 'cue stick'

Hi @RodneyBaggins You reverted my today edit that (a) rephrased some miscellaneous bad grammar and (b) corrected the displayed introductory declaration of "cue stick" to "snooker cue" while referencing the same 'Cue stick' Wiki page. Please can you expand on why, thanks very much. ToaneeM (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi ToaneeM, thanks for discussing. I was concerned that you introduced a pipe to the article for Cue stick whilst suggesting that "cue stick" is never used. It might be ok to do a straight snooker cue redirect, but the correct term is in fact "cue stick", hence the related article (but we might need a source one way or the other!) Your grammar suggestions were probably good, and I shall reinstate shortly once checked for consistency. Are you aware that this article is up for TFA next Friday (16th)? As one of the FA nominators back in 2021 (along with User:Lee Vilenski), I'm currently looking closely at the article in time for that deadline. Really pleased for any improvement suggestions along the way... Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: Do any of your book sources contain direct reference to the term "cue stick"? We probably need a citation for this. What about Boru 2010, Peall 2017, Shamos 2002? In my reckoning, the item is a stick that the player uses to cue the shot, therefore it's a cue stick but that's just a load of old WP:OR. The term "cue stick" doesn't actually appear in the Rulebook. User:ToaneeM may have uncovered a small can of worms here. Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@RodneyBaggins thanks for setting such a welcoming tone, it's appreciated and sometimes in very short supply on this site. Meanwhile... In 30-something years of playing a lot of snooker and pool (fun and league), watching snooker and commentary pretty avidly on TV, reading many books on it, watching a fair amount of videos, talking to coaches and talking a pretty big number of players, I can assuredly report that no-one says 'cue stick'. As in zero followed by many decimal zeroes :-) The 'Cue stick' article was my next port of call. When I saw it hear, I assumed that it was some obscure American pool thing - but I've never seen or heard of it there either, or in their commentary/videos etc. It's got no place in snooker or UK pool. (Calling a cue a 'stick' has always been regarded as an outsider's nonsense, or used as a joke, same as calling it 'a bat' (e.g. cricket's "I'll bat", meaning "my turn" or "I'll break"). But that's trivia: no-one calls it a stick in snooker.) Following that, we don't need a source saying it's not called something, no more than a source saying it's not called a jam sandwich or anything else. Unless a *very* large number of reputable examples from the snooker world can be found using 'cue stick', sufficient to outweigh the use of 'cue' throughout in thousands of hours of commentary etc., the correct term 'cue' must be used. (We're not looking for one example to try and discredit decades.) Being honest, goodness knows where 'cue stick' (stick?!) came from. But it's certainly, certainly not from the daily world of snooker, which the article is about. (@BennyOnTheLoose not a can of worms, more discovering a crazy made-up non-snooker term :-) ). Thanks. ToaneeM (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Rodney Baggins and ToaneeM. I cannot recall ever hearing or reading the term "cue stick" in British books about snooker - until today, when I saw one mention in Boru's book. He mainly uses "cue" though. I don't have the Peall book, but as that's a reprint from 1928 I don't think it's very useful. The term "cue stick" appears in WP:MOSCUE with a note that "A bare reference to "the cue" is usually too ambiguous." - but I'm sure this is an American English term. In Michael Shamos's The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards, the definition for "cue stick" has "A tapered instrument for stroking the CUE BALL, usually made of wood and approximately 57 inches long. Also known as a BILLIARD STICK, A STICK, or just a CUE. Colloquially, it is sometimes referred to as one's TOOL, WAND, or WEAPON." The definition of "Cue" in Shamos's book has two meanings - the stick and the cue ball; the first of these is " = CUE STICK, the instrument used to propel billiard balls. 1749 oED. The word 'cue' is derived from the French queue, meaning 'tail' and referring to the end, or shaft handle, of the MACE.". As RB has mentioned, the WPBSA rules refer to a "cue". I'd favour using just "cue". Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @BennyOnTheLoose and it has to be just 'cue', for my previously stated reasons. A couple of examples of 'cue stick' are truly insignificant. Snooker defines the article, the article doesn't define snooker. Sorry but this is as ludicrous like a fishing article saying 'fishing rod stick' :-) To @Rodney Baggins other point, I'd be happy to contribute to this article as I've been meaning to rewrite the game play section for some time. It's fairly much all over the place. Thanks. ToaneeM (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The term "Cue stick" is a bit wider than just snooker. The thing is, in practice everyone just says "cue". It's a bit of ambiguous term, as we use "cue" to also mean how you play a shot and how you position yourself on a shot. I suspect the title of the article cue stick is more of a WP:NATURALDAB than an official term. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Lee Vilenski, When you say "wider than snooker", can you give a number of examples of 'cue stick' being used and where it comes from? Is it some obscure US pool thing? I've never heard it (my earlier statement on UK/international snooker, UK/some US pool: In 30-something years of playing a lot of snooker and pool (fun and league), watching snooker and commentary pretty avidly on TV, reading many books on it, watching a lot of of videos (1940s to now), talking to coaches and talking a pretty big number of players, I can assuredly report that no-one says 'cue stick'. As in zero followed by many decimal zeroes :-)) Nor ever has. The starting point is 'cue' with evidence needed for this 'cue stick' thing, rather than the other way around. The evidence for 'cue' in snooker is 100% over decades, so the "is it?" part of this is answered. Using a word as a noun and verb, like 'cue', is common in English. Frankly, I'm truly amazed anyone's having this conversation - it's a kid's/beginner's first-day term that gets laughs and corrected. It's like the Wikipedia article's trying to define snooker, whereas snooker defines the article. Anyway, in view of overwhelming evidence I'll correct the Snooker article. That leaves the 'Cue stick' article to fix next. ToaneeM (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you may have misread my comment. You wouldn't call all cues "snooker cues", because cues are used in many sports (that's why it's cue sports). So, if you were to move the title of cue stick, you'd have to move it to cue, which as you can see from the dab page has lots of meanings. It wouldn't be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so we'd have some weird DAB like cue (sports) or something.

In terms of the prose, I don't really have an issues with calling it a cue stick on first mention as if you were trying to explain what one is, you'd liken it to a stick. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski, yep, I had the same thoughts when examining the 'cue stick' article. And my first correction of the introductory term was to 'snooker cue' (which has different size/shape/weight range to pool cues etc.) while linked to the daft-named 'cue stick' article (I went one step at a time). But let's re-establish the starting point: the ridiculous 'cue stick' doesn't exist, nor any number of home-made alternatives; 'cue' is the noun and verb, 'snooker cue' then 'cue' in the snooker article. For the cue article, 'Cue (table sports)' is simple, clear and will be fine. It's a perfectly ordinary definition, like a thousand other nouns on the site (look at song titles, for instance) so nothing weird there. A cue is not a type of stick, no more than a bracket is a type of bent metal strip. ToaneeM (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Even in "table sports", cue means more than one thing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski, Can you give examples of it meaning more than one thing, thanks. (That's whereby the further meanings are on a similar standing to the primary meaning.) I can't think of any. Otherwise, we can go with 'Cue (table sports)'. ToaneeM (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, you "cue through the ball", it being a verb rather than the noun of the stick. Worth remembering that not all cue sports were played on a table, such as ground billiards (and arguably things like hockey sticks and the like are from the same origins). Personally, I'd like to see that cue stick article expanded with more of that information, such as the mace and other types of sticks, such as lacrosse and the like than worry about a title. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski Sorry Lee, we're now going around in a small and unproductive circle. GB was a mallet; stick is out; noun/verb has been covered. The title is flat wrong and must be corrected, so let's do that now. Expanding the content can come afterwards. ToaneeM (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to call it a "snooker cue" in the lead section because it redirects to Cue stick#Snooker. Seems to make more sense and solves the immediate issue raised here. Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rodney Baggins That's fine, thanks. I'll now begin the same discussion on the 'Cue stick' page, making the same points as above and getting that changed. Besides that, I haven't forgotten your earlier points asking for improvements to the Snooker article before a deadline. ToaneeM (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Overlink template

@Skywatcher68: Thank you for your edits to this article. Are you aware that it's due for TFA on 16th August (next Friday)? If you have any other suggestions for improvements, please let us know asap so we can incorporate before then. You have tagged the article as overlinked. Please could you indicate how you arrived at that conclusion and help us identify where links can be removed. I'm always mindful of MOS:DUPLINK issues, but I haven't necessarily noticed any overlinking issues in this one. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I've already corrected two instances of overlinking in the lead alone: one for the definition of "cue ball" and one for India. There may be more in the rest of the article; it's like a sea of blue and I don't have time to go through the whole thing.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

NB: "India" fell under MOS:OVERLINK

In addition, major examples of the following categories should generally not be linked:

Countries (e.g., Brazil/Brazilian, Canada/Canadian, China/Chinese)

rather than MOS:DUPLINK. Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I removed some links as suggested by a script, and also a couple of the duplicate links. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I believe that adequately address the issue so I've removed the tag. There are still some links in the lead which are duplicated in the body but I guess those are okay.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Various comments

A few thoughts.

• It would be nice to make the article a bit less prone to becoming outdated. There is a surprising amount of info that has become outdated since the article was promoted to FA.

→ I think that's inevitable as things move on quickly in the sporting world. I guess we need to revisit the article at regular intervals (at least every 12 months) to identify dated statements and update/source new info. Alternatively, we could just cut out some of the dynamic statements altogether.

• MOS:NOW has some advice and hints. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• I suggest replacing File:To pot the red.jpg - it's a quarter-size table with a rather threadbare cloth and a cue ball that has seen better days.

→ I always quite liked that image myself! Feel free to remove/replace if you hate it.

• No, the state of the cue ball bothers me but it does present a different side to the pictures of the professional game. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Illustration A is a bit far from its mention in the text, in my desktop view.

→ I guess that's because there are 4 images stacked above it on RHS. Not sure how this can be remedied other than removing/moving one of them, or placing Illustration A on LHS (directly below "Objective" subheading), but that would probably introduce a MOS:SANDWICH issue.

• I don't think "first=Brunswick Balke last=Collender" is right for the book, but I'm not sure how to fix it.
• Timeline of snooker on UK television as the only item in "See also" doesn't seem appropriate.

→ Agree. Maybe remove See also section altogether, or add link to Glossary of cue sports terms?

• Probably more to follow. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The fix for the 1925 book was already present per Template:Cite book so I've removed the inappropriate first / last.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Added replies above. Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Benny, I've moved the snooker table image up into the History section – how do you feel about that? Does it solve your issue with Illustration A being a bit far from its mention in the text in your desktop view? Also, how do you feel about the blurb image being changed?
I have noticed there are two citations that have no link, even though they contain a via parameter:

• Ref.9 --- "Billiard Sketches". Liverpool Weekly Courier. 9 July 1881. p. 6 – via The British Newspaper Archive. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
• Ref.27 --- Everton, Clive (6 April 1976). "Women Take Cue". The Guardian. p. 27 – via ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Guardian and The Observer. Retrieved 31 August 2019.

Can you provide a url for those two? Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rodney Baggins: No issues with the images, thanks. Unfortunately I don't have access to the British Newspaper Archive or Newspapers.com at the moment. IIRC, The Guardian archive moved to Newspapers.com a couple of years back. I've asked at Resource Exchange in case anyone can help for that one. I've removed the "via" from the Liverpool Weekly Courier as the BNA is subscription-only and links usually just direct to a sales pitch. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Re Pot Black and "In the same year, the 1969 World Snooker Championship reverted to a knockout tournament format" - the 1969 WSC tournament actually started in 1968, not 1969. The 1969 championship finished on 22 March 1969. (See 1969 article for the Chris Turner ref.) Pot Black was first broadcast on 23 July 1969.(Everton 2012, p.38). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• According to Ray Reardon, "The [Pot Black] series was completed in four days in the early summer of 1969" but he then add, erroneously it seems, that it was shown on TV over a year later. He mentions that it was the first series, and that he defeated Spencer 88-29 in the final,(Ray Reardon, 1982, p.76) which is what CueTracker has for 1969. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Final comments before TFA

@BennyOnTheLoose: I'm planning to do a bit more tomorrow, but running out of time for Friday... A few things to note:

• There are still half a dozen [cn] & [fv] tags to clear. I might be able to deal with a couple tomorrow, but we can't allow any to show up on Friday so the tags will need to be hidden, or the contentious material removed, and we can deal with the consequences after Friday.

• At this point, I don't think any of the uncited material would be badly missed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Ref. 154 (Lancashire Evening Post, Oct 1931) looks as if it's tagged to the wrong sentence — source is about women's game, sentence is about World Seniors Tour.

• Looks to me like this is redundant. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• There are a couple of deprecated sources: ref.67 is Express & ref.68 is Mirror. The only alternative I can find for Maguire's tirade is this. Metro is marginally more respectable?

• Based on their entries at WP:RSP, Metro is indeed better. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Potential for a 155 is not actually sourced, just the Jamie Cope bit.

• I removed a part that I didn't feel significant enough for inclusion. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Added a ref for 155 being possible after an initial free ball. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been trying to tidy up the Governance & Tournaments section which seemed a bit disjointed/disordered. I still have work to do on Tournament subsection and Criticism. I'm not sure if the Olympics stuff really belongs at the end of Tournaments, seems a bit out of place there. Maybe a completely separate subsection called "Olympic status" which could then be slightly expanded in its own space? (This might have to wait until a later date though, depending on how the rest goes.) Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks! Given that there is no real prospect of snooker becoming an Olympic sport, I don't think that material should be too prominent or long, but if a new section seems the best option then I have no objection. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)