Talk:Snooker/Archive 4
 | This non-existent page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Decade
ResolvedThe caption under the picture of Ronnie O'Sullivan says:
Ronnie O’Sullivan won most titles in the last decade (2001, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2013).
A decade is 10 years whereas these dates span 13 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.140.93 (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for mentioning this. It has now been
fixed. --BlueFire10 Let's talkabout my edits? 18:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for mentioning this. It has now been
Hmmmm, technically speaking it's been half fixed. The last decade, in World Championship terms, is surely 2003 to 2013. Probably best to change the phrase to "Ronnie O’Sullivan has won the most World titles in the 21st Century" or similar, I would think..?
- Fixed that, too. You don't need to establish consensus to fix obvious errors like this. Be WP:BOLD. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Size of snooker table.
ResolvedThe article states that a snooker table is 12ft X 6ft but the rules of snooker say that it should be 11ft 8.5in X 5ft 10in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.46.97 (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Long since fixed in the article (including in the lead; the correct info is also at Billiard table#Snooker. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Pronunciation
I don't know why Haldraper insists on removing this but it seems he won't stop. So I would like to start a conversation to get consensus to back or forbid a pronunciation. It is clear to me that there needs to be a pronunciation; the pronunciation is unclear and we frequently include such pronunciation guides. 67.164.156.42 (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, we should keep it in. GedUK 11:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep it. I've reverted Haldraper (talk · contribs) again, this time for deleting all sorts of stuff and sources, not just the pronunciation. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Retain in lead Pronunciation is a valuable addition to any article (when cited to a reliable source, which this is) where the topic's name is not either extremely obvious to any native speaker, or a phrase composed of common English words. It usually appears in the lead sentence by convention unless a more expansive treatment is needed (and it feels right to me there). This is reflected at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation#Placement. I don't agree that it is "undue", "unecessary" or that removing it is needed to "declutter [the] opening para[graph]", which have been cited in the edit summaries accompanying the removals. If there was a lot to say here I would agree it would be better in the body as noted in the MOS, but
(UK /ˈsnuːkər, -kə/[1] or US /ˈsnʊkər/)has a minor footprint--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)- A bit unclear here. You've got "two" pronunciations in there, but they appear to be identical: 'Snooker pronounced UK: snuker, pronounced US: snuker. What's the difference? And is the correct pronunciation really "shuk" (rhymes with "duck")? I've always heard it pronounced "snook" (rhymes with "book"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- This was fixed years ago. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- A bit unclear here. You've got "two" pronunciations in there, but they appear to be identical: 'Snooker pronounced UK: snuker, pronounced US: snuker. What's the difference? And is the correct pronunciation really "shuk" (rhymes with "duck")? I've always heard it pronounced "snook" (rhymes with "book"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Needs a sourcing overhaul
ResolvedIn 2017 terms, the sourcing in here is pretty embarrassing – lots of random websites by nobodies (WP:SPS), and lots of dead links that needs to be replaced with Web archive snapshots ({{cite web | ... |dead-url=yes |archive-url= https://... |archive-date=...}}}} so they work and so this stops categorizing as having dead links in it. There are way better sources available on this history of snooker, anyway, than things like fcsnooker and titansports, which are not reputable publishers. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 20:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- The objectionable sources seem to have been replaced some time ago, so archiving this as resolved. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Talk page, but no article
There is Talk:List of snooker players by number of ranking titles/Archive 1 but no article List of snooker players by number of ranking titles/Archive 1 now. Please fix.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Dthomsen8: It's an archive page of that talk page. The talk page itself is at Talk:List of snooker players by number of ranking titles. GedUK 13:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Portal:Snooker for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Snooker is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Snooker until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 04:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Ball sizes?
With so many different sizes of tables, balls come in many sizes even in children's sizes. What are the sizes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Covered probably adequately at Billiard ball. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
A game and a frame are not the same (thing)
We've been working on the assumption that game and frame are interchangeable but this is not actually the case. According to the official WPBSA Rulebook (page 10), "A game is an agreed or stipulated number of frames." and "A match is an agreed or stipulated number of games." So the only time when a "game" and a "frame" could be treated as the same thing is if we say each game consists of just one frame. Do we need to address this anomaly in the article or just avoid it altogether?
I've read somewhere (can't remember where) that a game might be seen as a mini-session (a "best of 3 frames" or a "best of 5 frames") and then you play these a number of times to make up an entire match. Has this format ever been used historically? Modern snooker matches do tend to be split across sessions, but as each session normally contains an even number of frames there's not necessarily an outright winner so it doesn't quite tally up with that idea.
The anomoly was up front in the first paragraph until Lee removed it yesterday. So shall we agree to just reserve the word "game" for the phrase "the game of snooker"? Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- The only time I can think of was one of the challenge world championship matches was played this way. When we say "the game of snooker" we aren't saying "a game of snooker", we are saying that snooker is a game (past time), rather than saying snooker games. These are two meanings to the same word. I don't see an issue with how it is worded currently. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I meant "the game of snooker" when referring to snooker as a game that one might play (recreation, pastime), rather than "a game of snooker" (as in a "frame"). The only place I can see where it might be misconstrued is the first sentence of the last paragraph in the Scoring subsection, which says:
One game of snooker, beginning with the balls in their starting positions and ending when the last ball is potted, is called a "frame".
Is that OK? Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)- Perhaps a synonym like "a contest of snooker", or just say "one frame" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I meant "the game of snooker" when referring to snooker as a game that one might play (recreation, pastime), rather than "a game of snooker" (as in a "frame"). The only place I can see where it might be misconstrued is the first sentence of the last paragraph in the Scoring subsection, which says:
Is snooker pool?
just a question. Keelanscanlan callidus 18:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, snooker and pool are just two of many different cue sports. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- We do have Comparison of cue sports, but it really need some work. Snooker has a lot of similarities to pool (bare in mind pool is a series of several games), but not the same, and played with significantly different equipment (balls, table, cues etc.) than that of pool. It's also got a completely different style of play. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Jesse washington
Talk the story of Jesse Washington 108.31.65.100 (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- Googling for "Jesse Washington" snooker doesn't turn up anything pertinent. I think this comment has been mis-placed and will archive it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)