This is an archive of past discussions about Snooker. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2004–2007

Apparatus for Snooker

"1 x cue (per person)
1 x chalk (another may be needed for fanatics)
1 x pair of eyes (per person)
some balls"

I took out the above as it isn't accurate. You don't need one cue per person. It is quite common to share cues. Chalk isn't essential. Neither are eyes. Angela 18:37, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)

An apparatus section should include all apparatus, too. Eyes aren't apparatus, but rakes and long cues and racks are. And the distinctive snooker scoreboards, come to think of it. Trontonian

Notice I have attempted at an equipment section. I omitted chalk, because I'm not sure of its exact purpose. If someone knows, please could they add it. P.S. I agree about eyes, does anyone know anything about blind snooker?

SimonMayer 17:16, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

I've added chalk to the list, but there are still things missing: balls, table, triangle (to line up the balls) and half butt. I hope to completely review this article at some point. --Auximines 07:57, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

A section on table construction would be useful, as would some photos, ie selection of cues and racks, possibly an article on cue construction/anatomy. Otherwise very good, could somebody tidy my comment up please...

If we're going to be complete (or fussy), might add "an opponent" & "an umpire", no? Trekphiler 00:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Silliness aside, the idea of such a subsection is a good one, for all such games. I (FWIW) recommend calling it ==Equipment==. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable players

Should Graeme Dott's name be in this list? ChicXulub 17:34, May 02, 2004 (GMT)

Not in my view - one world championship final isn't really enough to qualify him for an all-time list of notable players. I've written an article for him, however. --Auximines 07:59, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Please can Graeme Dott be removed, for the reasons above. Especially if you're going to leave out Peter Ebdon
SimonMayer 20:08, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

If noone comes up with a reason for keeping Graeme Dott in this list then I'll remove him from it sometime next week. ChicXulub 22:01, May 04, 2004 (GMT)

Tony Drago did not make the fastest maximum break, Ronnie O'Sullivan made the fastest five...

I have removed the reference to Tony Drago having the fastest 147, Guinness World Records has Ronnie O'Sullivan down for that honour...--Shastrix 18:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tony took the fastest eever win in a best-of-9 match, and possibly the fastest century break - I think that's where the confusion comes from

I am busy to completely renew this part of the article, and order them by this moments provisional rankings. I wil add lots of players too... --Seb147 14:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Shaun Murphy did not win the World Championships in 2005 at his first attempt - he has entered since turning professional in 1997. He is, however, the first player to win after having had to qualify for the Crucible since Terry Griffiths in 1979. --Alexmr 20:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, With the notable exception of Jimmy White, surely only world champions can appear in this list. Hence I have removed Ding JunHui as he's emerged only recently. Patrick

Not sure that only world champions can appear on the list; Jimmy White (okay, he's the exception, but why?) never won the World Championship yet he's one of the most 'notable players' in the game. If it's world champions then list the world champions; there are loads of world champtions missing from the list currently there. If it is indeed notable players, i.e. players that are famous and well known, then there are plenty missing such as Willy Thorne and John Virgo. Personally I'd go for notable over champion. MrKWatkins 00:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ding is already a notable player - youngest winner of a ranking title, first non-British UK Championship winner, first Chinese to win a ranking title, millions of fans, inspiring many people to play and follow the game......

'Notable' is hard to define - Thorne and Virgo are better known for TV work than playing, while Pulman is probably little-known to today's fans. Jimmy White is a definite, but I'd consider Paul Hunter and Doug Mountjoy for example as well.

Agreed with your point about 'notable'; how do you define it? Still it's probably more useful to have a list of 'notable' or 'famous' players than a list of champions. (If only for Jimmy White...)

And isn't Ronnie still the youngest winner of a ranking title? They were both 17 but I thought Ronnie still edged it... MrKWatkins 00:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The notable players table, as I understand it, is currently ordered by world ranking. Does this seem a bit odd to anyone? Surely alphabetical or World Championship wins would be more sensible orderings as the current system is going to require regular updates and is most un-encyclopaedic. Thoughts? 27/10/2006

end of 2003/04 season

I believe I've updated all the player biographies with the world championship results and the new rankings. --Auximines 09:23, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I've just created new entries for Chris Small, Marco Fu and Nigel Bond. If anyone wants to help expand them then feel free. ChicXulub 19:22, May 05, 2004 (GMT)

Glossary

Would anyone object if I moved the glossary of snooker terms to a new page called Snooker (Glossary) ?

I also think that the History section should come before the Game section. ChicXulub 19:10, May 08, 2004 (GMT)

I don't think the glossary needs to be moved. My opinion is the same as Pete's on Wikipedia talk:List where he wrote

A rule to consider: Suppose you create List of Xs relating to Y. If the only page that will link to it is Y then you may as well have List Of Y thingies on the Y page, otherwise you are just making navigation unnecessarily difficult for the user for the sake of bumping up the page count by 1..."

Angela . 23:39, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

My two pennyworth: I think the glossary is OK as it stands. Only move it if it gets much longer and starts to dominate the article. I agree the History section should come before the Game section. --Auximines 08:40, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject?

Resolved

– WAY old news; the WikiProject is very much up and running.

I can't help thinking we need a central forum to discuss snooker issues. At the moment discussion is spread over various article talk pages, and user talk pages as well. Is a WikiProject the way to go? If so, how do we set one up? I'm pretty new to all this. --Auximines 08:41, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject has some more information about starting one. It might be easiest to start by copying the Wikipedia:WikiProject/Template. See the sports section under Wikipedia:WikiProject#Entertainment, Hobbies and Leisure, and particularly the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports, which a Wikipedia:WikiProject snooker would be a descendant of. Angela . 20:45, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

I've created a very basic wikiproject for snooker which can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject snooker. ChicXulub . 22:43, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, that's great...no sooner said than done! --Auximines 08:22, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Origin of the term Snooker

In every discussion of the origin of the term snooker I ever heard, there was dispute about the origin of the word. This article does not indicate any doubt about the origin of the term snooker.

-- Additionally, there is one theory offered early on in the article (that a "snooker" was a newbie in the army), and then lateron it is implied that the game derived its name from the verb "to snooker"; I find especially the latter highly unlikely; it seems to me more likely that the verb "to snooker" was derived from the game. Can we have clarification on this? Bringa 5 July 2005 16:11 (UTC)

I've added the story about the origination of the game I have from a book by the Billiard Congress of America which I'm gonna take verbatim until a better source comes along. There was originally a date, 17th April 1875, for when the term 'snooker' originated; the source I have just says 1875. I suggest the date is left out until it is ratified. MrKWatkins 00:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Snooker history section of the IBSF suggests the Chamberlain story is problematic: "Prior to 1938 there was an equally accepted theory that the game been introduced by a "Colonel Snooker" of the Royal Artillery - Despite unremitting speculation on the subject since the game became popular in England in the 1880s Chamberlain waited until he was in his 84th year to reveal that he created the game of snooker in 1875 – some 63 years previously! However, there are some serious inconsistencies in the account provided by Chamberlain - The earliest contemporary reference which can be accurately dated and gives a detailed account of the game of "Snookers" appears in a letter written on 2nd February 1886 by Captain Sheldrick from Calcutta..." The article goes on: "As the alternatives are eliminated, we are left with the Hill Station of Ooty as the most credible birthplace for the game of "Snookers" " (possibly involving Chamberlain). Should this be reflected in the article?

On the word itself I've seen it suggested that 'snooker' as a military recruit originates as one who might 'cock a snook' ie make an insulting gesture and hope not to be seen doing it by someone in authority which I just thought interesting as a parallel with the hiding of the object ball in the game (?) So if anyone knows more... -- Hakluyt bean 01:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Pimmetje

Resolved

– Dealt with in article text, without objection for well over a year.

I removed 'Pimmetje' from the glossary as

It sounds like non-sense
A google search (pimmetje snooker) only returns wikipedia and clones
It was added by an IP (82.169.84.200), of which it is the only contribution.

Tinus 01:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh?

Can somebody clarify this:

"When a player leaves an opponent snookered on at least one side of all balls "on" after a foul, the other player will receive a free ball."

Thanks. Trekphiler 21:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

When player A makes a foul, whichever foul that is, and the other player, B, cannot hit both sides of any ball "on" in a direct line, the player, B, will receive a "free ball". In other words; if there are still reds on the table; player A makes a foul; player "B" comes to the table and the reds are ball "on"; there is, however, not a red on the table that he can hit on BOTH sides; player B can play a colour and red, then pot another colour like after every red, and then continue with a red.

This is right but using reds is a bad example. With reds if you can hit a red on both sides but another RED is obstructing its path then it isn't a free ball. [The previous unsigned comment was posted by 86.139.60.72 (talk · contribs), at 01:41, 14 March 2007]

Then the obstructing red would be on, wouldn't it? Kraikk 11:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops

How is it there are no women mentioned among great players? I'd mention (if I could recall here name...) the "Black Widow", called finest female snooker cueist ever. (With which I'd agree.) So? Trekphiler 22:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Because there aren't any. No woman has ever come close to the top men. The best female player was probably Allison Fisher - she scraped into the top 200 at one point. I'd never heard of Jeanette Lee (the "Black Widow") until I read your comment. A minute's googling reveals she's a pool player. --Auximines 18:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles for individual balls

This question was brought to my attention when I saw a dis-ambiguation page Blue Ball:

Does anyone have any opinions on whether articles on the individual snooker balls (e.g. Snooker blue ball) can be useful?? Georgia guy 21:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Use entries at Glossary of cue sports terms and the {{cuegloss}} template. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Time foul in snooker?

Shouldn't it be consider a common foul? 203.51.88.142 14:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

By 'time foul' do you mean taking too long to take a shot? There is a rule against that (see http://www.worldsnooker.com/about_the_rules.htm section 4.1.a but I've never seen or even heard of it being enforced in 20 years of watching snooker. I really can't see why one would time waste in snooker... MrKWatkins 00:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I remember Peter Ebdon countering Ronny O'Sullivan's fast tempo by playing very, very, very slowly. Ronny got annoyed, and Ebdon won. It's not pretty, but it works. Of course, Peter did pick up a lot of critics after this performance, despite his ever aggressive style. Millm0w 12:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable players

Have tabulated and elaborated this section a little, but have not (yet) confirmed some of the information I've added, so please check. There are also a few square-bracket queries I've left, plus a commented mention of Joe Johnson. Thanks, David Kernow 00:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Mark Williams' nickname was down as 'Double Top', yet every match I've ever seen him play he was introduced as 'The Welsh Potting Machine', including today's, so I've changed it accordingly. Whilst I was there I've also updated the history a bit from a book I have; it doesn't mention that Chamberlain taught the game to John Roberts Junior himself, and to me it seems unlikely that would have happened, so can we change it? Also not 100% sure I've got the citation formatting right, can someone change it if not please? Cheers, MrKWatkins 00:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Re Mark Williams as "Double Top", I too have never read/heard this nickname. I'm not a dedicated follower of the game, though, so I left it. (I don't think he has a double life as a notable darts player!) Thanks for your input, David Kernow 01:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Innaccurate labelling of picture

There's a picture on the page which is labelled as a spider rest when it clearly is a swan-necked spider rest.

FIXED: Not quite but is now! I reverted this to an "extended spider", as this is the correct terminology. A swan-neck spider, like its name suggests, consists of a single extended metal "bar" about six inches long that splits in two at the end, leaving room for a single cue-head to fit. See a pic. of a swan-neck at: http://www.thecuedoctor.co.uk/TCD-0004.htm

Frames vs Games

I notice at this year's world championship, the BBC commentators are calling individual frames, "games" for some reason. For example, "He only needs two more games to win the match".

Can anyone shed any light?

(Derry Boi 19:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

Do you know which commentator/s are transgressing thus? So far as I'm aware, a game of snooker consists of a certain number of frames... Regards, David Kernow 20:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

External Links

What should we do with the potential myriad of 'snooker' websites that could be linked to in this article? I've removed several with a commercial slant, so do we stick with "only" the major sites like world snooker or WWW Snooker (called 'snooker results' in the article)? That would be my recommendation, otherwise we'll be snowed under with the likes of two new ones that have appeared recently, but let's hear what others say (Patrick) bigpad 20:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It depends - I tend to take the line that for small obscure subjects any links are good links to allow the reader to get some extra outside info. On big subjects then the links should be kept down to the bare essentials to avoid pages turning into linkfarms. Snooker is a kind of middle of the road subject, in that it is big, yet it isn't. There are a good number of websites out there, but not quite hundreds and hundreds. It is all judgement calls really - Wikipedia:External links gives some good guidance on the general rules to follow - but I tend to follow the line that if an external link is added by an anon IP with no other content added from the then it is likely to be spam and is more likely to be removed than someone who is adding useful content as well. SFC9394 12:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Created article for the snooker table

In common with the billiards table article I created one for the snooker table. The information currently overlaps somewhat with the current setup section of the snooker article. What do people think? Should we remove the overlapping information be removed from the main snooker article and link to the new snooker table article? Obviously the snooker table article could be expanded upon. StraussianNeocon 12:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work - it is certainly deserving of its own article. I think that it is generally a good idea to reduce the length of the snooker page. Although size wise it is inside the guidelines for page size, it is pretty 'long' to read - and the longer a page reads the less likely an end user is going to read all of it. Overlap content specifically relating to the table can get moved to the new article (if it doesn't exist there) or deleted from here. It would be handy to link in the table now and then in the article to ensure the content is still easily noticeable for readers. There is good room for expansion on the table article, discussing the changes that have occurred - the use of very fine cloths and heaters at the professional level etc etc. SFC9394 14:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Snooker pool variant

Resolved

– Either will be sourced and added, or won't and won't.

[This topic was moved here from Talk:Cue sport]

Isn't there a "mini-snooker" game which is played on a Pool table using just the set of pool balls? The reds are 10 balls (all the stripes, plus 3 solids), and the point balls are the remaining ones which coincide with their point values. There is a shortage of one ball, so I'm not sure how it works. 71.250.17.62 13:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can document it, please add it to the snooker article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Crucible?

Is the world championship really "also known as The Crucible"? People talk about so-and-so's performance "at the Crucible", of course, but that's because they play at the Crucible rather than because people call the actual championships "The Crucible", isn't it? --Camembert

I've never heard it called that. I e-mailed a snooker-expert friend and he said The two do go hand in hand, the crucible is legendary for the world championships but I don't think it would be called that. However I'm sure you get some weird people who do (but not officially!). --Angela 14:34, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Yes, the Crucible (Crucible Theatre, Sheffield) is the venue and "at the Crucible" has become synonymous with "at the World Championship" as the Championship has been based there for years, at least as long as it has been televised (so far as I know). David Kernow 01:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've heard TV commentators call it that. (Does that count?) Trekphiler 00:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction tag

I placed the {{contradict}} tag on the article since it states two etymologies for the word "snooker". Compare the first paragraph of the "History" section to the sixth of "Fouls" --- Deville (Talk) 23:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have revised the article to remove this contradiction. Thanks, bigpad 08:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul Hunter Remembrance

Paul Hunter played snooker with a smile on his face, was an ultimate gentleman, and could have gone on as far as he would have liked. Our thoughts at this time go to his wife and children, and we all hope they get through this difficult period. This is for Paul. Millm0w 07:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Some disputed comment

For highly ranked players professional snooker is a very lucrative occupation

with winnings of over £7.8 million as of 2005

That's hardly 'very lucrative'. Skinnyweed 08:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What would you class as very lucrative then? - Dudesleeper 12:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm fed up with Skinnyweed, first you risrespect Paul Hunter, and now you show your obvious middle-classness with a stupid comment like that. I'm allfor free speech and all, but you're are full of it. Millm0w 10:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Millm0w, please see WP:ATTACK, WP:CIVIL, WP:EQ, WP:COOL, and WP:FAITH, and don't respond to trolling if you can help it (see WP:TROLL). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Women's Snooker?

This article omits any mention of Women's Snooker or female snooker players; an understandable oversight do to the bias inherent in the sport, but one that should still be corrected. I think the tournament section ought to state the main Women's tournament(s), the best female player(s) be added to the article's list and ideally a paragraph added addressing the gender bias in the sport. --Jwanders 20:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Amen! How can you omit "The Black Widow"?! (I can't recall her name, dammit...) Trekphiler 00:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeanette Lee? Are you sure she plays snooker? I've only ever seen her do nine-ball, eight-ball and speed pool... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Money, money, money

I deleted "(£6.50, equivalent to about £200 today)". Unless somebody intends to update the equivalent value daily (or so), it's irrelevant. Trekphiler 00:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Redoing it as "in 2006" instead of "today". This figure should only need to be updated annually at most since it is vaguely approximate to begin with. Also, the shillings-to-pence conversion is quite useful for non-UK people like me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please review: Consensus and consistency needed on spelling to prevent ambiguity & confusion

Especially for nine-ball but also for eight-ball, one-pocket, and even snooker, etc., I firmly think we need to come to, and as editors enforce in article texts, a consensus on spelling conventions and implement it consistently throughout all of the cue sports Wikepedia articles. I advocate (and herein attempt to justify) a system of standardized spellings, based on 1) general grammar rules; 2) basic logic; and 3) disambiguation.

This is a draft submission to the active editor community of billiards-related articles on Wikipedia. It is intended to ultimately end up being something like "[[Wikipedia:[something:]Billiards/Spelling guidelines]]", or part of an official Wikipedia cue sports article-shepherding Project, likely it's first documentation output.

Anyway, please help me think this through. The point is not for me to become world famous™ for having finally codified billiards terms and united the entire English-speaking world in using them (hurrah). I simply want the articles here on pool and related games to be very consistent in application of some new consensus Wikipedia editing standards about spelling/phrasing of easily confusable billards terms that may be ambiguous to many readers in the absence of that standard.

Compare:

"While 9-ball is a 9-ball game, the 9-ball is the real target; pocket it in a 9-ball run if you have to, but earlier is better." (Huh?)
"While nine-ball is a nine ball game, the 9 ball is the real target; pocket it in a nine ball run if you have to, but earlier is better." (Oh, right!)

That's the super-simple "use case" I make for this proposed nomenclature. If you think that the differentiation didn't cut it please TELL ME, and say how you would improve it.

So, here's the article draft so far (please do not edit it directly! Post on its Discussion page instead; thanks.): User:SMcCandlish/Pool_terms

(PS: This intro text is repeated at the top of it.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Cue sports

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports. Any comments, or better yet interested editors to participate? This would be a "parent" WikiProject that would not interfere with WikiProject Snooker, but attempt to do what WPS is doing for snooker with the rest of the cue sports, and keep them consistently organized. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Snooker aka shuffleboard?

In the United States, snooker can also refer‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} to a sort of miniaturized version of :shuffleboard played with weighted, sliding disks, on a long table with a polished wooden surface. :Though uncommon, this pastime is occasionally found in bars and pubs.

I have never heard shuffleboard miniature or otherwise referred to as snooker. Also the miniature version of shuffleboard is very common, especially in Texas.Zeos386sx 21:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Zeos386sx on both points (and am American). Where are the sources for this usage? I strongly suspect that this usage of "snooker" is either a localism of no encyclopedic value (like calling mountain lions "painters"), or is a trademark or brand name, again of no encyclipedic import. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Kick/heavy contact

So many times, faults in play have been referred to as "kicks" or the ball getting "heavy contact" off annother.

I have often wondered what has caused this...I had presumed some form of static charge by movement on the cloth, building up during play then discharging?

please help

When you look into the abyss, the abyss looks unto you 21:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is caused by the cue ball sticking to the object ball for a moment upon contact due to dirt or chalk on the balls. Kraikk 11:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Time to revise article?

Hi All,

Over time, this article on snooker has grown very large. While people like me make edits to maintain its accuracy, I would have to say that anyone relatively unacquainted with snooker would easily find it quite forbidding and complex!

Snooker rules are complicated, true enough, but I wonder if it isn't time to consider an overhaul of this article to make it shorter and a little simpler, without diluting the standards expected of a Wiki page?

Many of the topics could easily be treated in detail in sub-topics.

I'd be willing to take this forward in January if people let us have their views on this.

All the best,

Patrick bigpad 09:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

See WP:SUMMARY for where to go from here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Castle's Book of Sports and Pastimes (1912)

It is worth noting that the edition of Castle's Book of Sports and Pastimes published in 1912 lists many Billiard game variations and includes a detailed description of Pyramid but no mention of Snooker or of any game resembling it. [This comment was placed in the article page itself by 161.11.121.158 (talk · contribs), 14:55, February 6, 2007 (UTC); moved to talk page by SMcCandlish, 00:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)]

World Snooker Federation

Resolved

Is there any such things as the World Snooker Federation as opposed to Association? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Never heard of it. There's the WCBS (World Confederation of Billiards Sports), the very top-level body bigpad 11:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK; I think I simply ran into a typo then. Just wanted to make sure that the ref. I found to WSF wasn't regarding an actual entity by that name. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

Resolved

– Article was overhauled, but failed WP:GAN.

As a CC of what Bigpad commented above in December - would it now be a good time to get this article up a few grades of standard? There can be quite a few complaints of how it is at the moment - too long, too detailed, "old fashioned looking" (and by that I mean it looks a bit "wikipedia article circa 2003" with its layout and style). I will run through some changes this afternoon - folks can feel free to comment on or alter what I do, I will just have a bit of an experiment on improvement. SFC9394 15:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have been to busy to even start his but certainly it's well overdue now. Length of the article is the major problem. Have a stab and we'll hopefully are contribute our ideas bigpad 20:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have made some fairly substantial changes. Improvements to the summary chapters in the main article welcomed. The content spun out into new articles was: History of snooker, The game of snooker and Notable Snooker Players. The content on those pages is just carbon copies of what was in the article, so they are actually the areas that require quite a bit of cleaning, sorting and polishing done to them - but at least we now have a fairly decent looking parent article from which to launch to these sub-articles. Comments and suggestions welcomed. The article is on such a nice, non-controversial, easily reference'able subject that I would fancy we would have quite a decent chance of getting it to feature status without too much extra work - Main Page feature would be nice if we could get it to tie with the WC finals (precedence for timing main page feature with events has already been set in the past). SFC9394 02:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What a great job you have done, my friend! What we need do now is not allow the article to begin to sprout new appendages that will only recreate the size problem. I'll try and find some time to "polish" the existing sections bigpad 14:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It should hopefully be fairly straight forward to keep it in check from now on, as any major addition has its own sub page to go to so nobody should (hopefully) feel the need to start adding lots of duplicate content. I will have a further look at the feature requirements to see how close we are to having something in that range. SFC9394 16:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As the header at the top of the talk page indicates, I have submitted the article to Feature Article Candidature. Hopefully things will go well. SFC9394 11:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Prize money

Resolved

– No consensus to add US dollar or other currency conversions; per WP:MOSNUM#Currency, just use ₤ at 1st occurrence.

Not every player who competes in British snooker tournaments is from the UK. So it's only fair to add how much the prize offered in pounds are in other currency equivalents, especially in dollars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.126.116.170 (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Eh. Wikipedia is not a currency converter, but to the extent such things are found useful in some cases, they must be dated, as per WP:MOSNUM#Currency, or they are meaningless or even directly misleading. That said, I don't really agree with this entirely. Taken to its logical conclusion, every mention of money would be followed by about 300 currency conversions. PS: You didn't even say what you meant by "dollar". The US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico and many other countries use "dollars". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is understood that there are countries other than the US that wear the name "dollar" for their currency. But in most cases when simply "dollar" is used, it refers to the dollar of the US. So perhaps no need for confusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.217.45.255 (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Having just returned from 18 months in Canada, I can tell you that this is not true at all, and it is why the MoS says to use "US$5", not "$5". Anyway, I don't have any huge objection to adding a dated US$ conversion, since the largest number of WP users are American and it might be helpful for them. But it certainly isn't required. That said, if someone puts in a proper one, I'd be cautious about removing it - might look like across-the-pond POV editwarring. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Resolved

– Template was added

This article badly needs a ~~Template:Sport overview infobox~~ Template:Infobox sport. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mangled edit

Resolved

– Fixed.

An edit by 76.168.117.239 (talk · contribs) mangled at least one reference citation; I'm super tired and my eyes hurt, or I'd go fix it myself... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Did this get fixed? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Checked history; it did get repaired. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)