Talk:Power Snooker

Merge

Resolved

 – Consensus was against the merger proposal.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It has been suggested that this article be merge to Snooker. Please start your Support, Keep, or Comment on a new bulleted line, and remember to sign it.:

• Support - probably too little here for a stand-alone article that would never get past stub class, and it would might be a great enhancement to the main article at Snooker that needs bringing to GA status. --Kudpung (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - New event not quiet sure where it will go at the mo. Set to become a series, if 1st event in October is deemed a success. Page could become the overall series page. But some of this could obviously be merged into varients of snooker. But a keep from me for now. KnowIG (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Other variants such as Snooker plus and Six-red snooker have dedicated articles so there is no reason why Power Snooker shouldn't. If there is going to be a televised tournament featuring the top professional players it satisfies notability criteria. Also, the snooker article doesn't really accommodate other variants - it justs lists them and wikilinks to the appropriate article: Snooker#Variants. The snooker article describes a game with complex rules, and if you add in the rules for other variants it's going to get very confusing for readers not familiar with the sport. Betty Logan (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep it is a variant of snooker. Other variants have their own articles too. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Closed: The consensus is Keep. I'll withdraw my merge proposal anyway as the debate introduces elements that I did not/should have already considered.--Kudpung (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article issues

1. If there are only 9 reds, how does a player score a century break? 9 reds times 8 points with blacks plus 27 for the colours equals 99. Does the 'break' continue into a new frame? If so, a century is ludicrously unlikely; when did you last see a pot from the break? 2. What is the PowerZone?--MartinUK (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This can be achieved twice: 1, "The middle red is known as the 'PowerBall'. When this is potted a two minute 'PowerPlay' begins where all points are doubled." 2, "The area behind the baulk line is known as the 'PowerZone.' Any colour balls potted from behind this line are doubled in value and are quadrupled in a PowerPlay." Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Split tournament article

I recommend spliting the tournament section to a new article. Then the template will be more appropriate. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's appropriate yet, not while it's not clear that there will be more tournaments. All that needs to happen is for someone to adequately explain how a game with fifteen balls played to a limit of 12 minutes can be on the template, but one with nine limited to 30, can't. Frankly, I would class any of the time limited/shot clock using tournaments as 'variants', but maybe there's a definition somewhere that I've not seen, and it really is just about the number of balls/scoring method. MickMacNee (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no reason to split this any time soon. Just put the tournament and its template in it own section. A redir from the touranment name to the section can be categorized in the tournaments category, in anticipation of a future split, should this Power Snooker notion go somewhere. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Why capitalized?

If this is not a trademark, it should not be capitalized. If it is a trademark, it would be preferable to have the article at nine-red snooker or some other non-trademarked term if one can be reliably sourced. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)