Talk:Ten-ball

Photo Contradicts Caption

The photograph of a "valid" ten-ball rack features the 7-ball in a corner position instead of the 3-ball, but the caption specifies that the 3-ball must be in a corner position for the rack to be valid. 66.188.79.222 (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction

How can ten-ball be "preferred" on the basis that money-ball breaks are hard, if money-ball breaks are not actually game-winners? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is not a contradiction. It is saying that it is harder to sink ANY ball on a break, not just the 10-ball. [The previous unsigned commented was added by 69.109.234.255 (talk · contribs), February 10, 2007 ]

That seems counter-intuitive to me: I thought that 9-ball diamonds were supposed to be harder to "smash and hope" than 15-ball triangle racks, and I'd have assumed that 10-ball triangles would be broadly similar. But maybe not. Is this really true? Or better yet, can you cite some notable pool player (or other authority) asserting it, that could be used as a source? Alai 04:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Alai on this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Looked into the stats on this; while I can't find a scientific study or anything, the general impression is that nine-ball racks are easier to sink a ball off of than eight-ball (or otherwise more crowded, and especially more self-crowding, i.e. triangular) racks. The gist is that likelihood of pocketing (or potting, if one prefers) is primarily a factor of ball travel and only secondarily of ball collisions that happen to deflect a ball into a pocket; every collision saps energy (i.e. travel) from the balls involved in the collisions, stopping many of them dead or near-dead, and forming clusters. Updated article text to at least make sense pending reliable sources on the matter; removed "Contradict" tag (as pointed out above, it wasn't ever really a contradiction in the first place; it was just inclarity of wording.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The contradiction is probably actually real, as there are two radically different versions of ten-ball. I have the sources to fully document both of them, and will do so as time permits. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Combination shots? Differing rulesets

I think this is wrong, as on youtube there are some 10 ball videos and people have used combinations on the 10 (and i think i remember a golden break as well, with Pagulayan saying "10 baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllll really loudly and Billy Incardona exclaiming about how he is such a character.) Anyway, the point is, I think this is wrong, and I have proof. OO, it seems they have turned iit into a private video. Wasn't the last time. Anyway, I may be wrong because this was a 10-ball "ring game", and these often have different rules than the main stream game.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Turns out there are two radically different rulesets. There's the pro game, the WPA World Standardized Rules; and then there's the traditional American game that was promoted by the BCA until recently. The 2008 edition of the BCA's Billiards: The Official Rules and Records Book uses the strict WPA rules, while the 2006 edition still had the old, nine-ball-like rules. I don't have the 2007 edition, so I cannot yet source for sure when this change happened (either from 2006 to 2007, or 2007 to 2008). I suspect the latter. Anyway, the article needs a complete rewrite, giving both versions of the game in two separate sections, as the older BCA version is certainly still played and notable. I would put the WPA rules first, however, as they are the IOC-recognized world sports authority for billiards. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect

Resolved

 – Off-topic.

With all due respect: Comment on "Outside view" by User:SMcCandlish on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro I would respectfully refute and contradict User:Maxschmelling and User:SMcCandlish charges-comment, etc. against me, on violations of Wikipedia rules on editing, appearing on Comment on Outside view[7], to wit:

• the user does add trivial "news" to articles, often with extended rambling quotations that have nothing important do with the topic at hand,
• including copypasting the "news" from article to article (I can confirm the above notes that they always seem to have something to do with the Philppines),
• sloppy, with grammatical errors, incomplete citations, and citations to sources that did not in fact support the material being added,
• They also constituted copyright violations in several cases and concomitantly violated WP:NPOV, as passages from one or another of the sources were copy-pasted verbatim, including loaded journalistic language that does not belong in an encyclopedia. (Re: at Niels Feijen, Wu Chia-ching and Darren Appleton).

This belongs at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro, and has nothing to do with improving the article Ten-ball. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction: Argument

Under WP:NPOV, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." By seriatim evidence:[8], I respectfully refute-submit-contradict by counter evidence the above-charges: :First, I had been watching (nightly) on Studio 23, here, Philippines, the first ever, World [[[Ten-Ball]] championship. So I begun with this notable piece of edit. It is rarest when Philippine Vice President Noli de Castro opened this greatest event: 08:38, 5 October 2008 Florentino floro (Talk | contribs) (6,706 bytes) (VP Noli de Castro opens the championship, and results) (undo) Second, User:Maxschmelling reverted my edit: 17:45, 5 October 2008 Maxschmelling (Talk | contribs) (5,730 bytes) (→Results: semifinals matches not notable. When there is a winner, include that name) (undo) - saying, semis are not notable. Third, User:SMcCandlish reverted Max's and chose my edit as good: 22:17, 5 October 2008 SMcCandlish (Talk | contribs) m (6,722 bytes) (Nothing wrong with reporting on an ongoing event. Undid revision 243220672 by Maxschmelling (talk)) (undo) Then, 07:13, 6 October 2008 Florentino floro (Talk | contribs) (9,882 bytes) (other results, Manila venue next year, statements) (undo) This, under the law is the evidence of the highest character, "extrajudicial admission" by User:SMcCandlishthat Max's was wrong and my edit was good. Fourth, I added the most important encyclopedic materials only after I viewed the 3 hours finals on Studio 23, then, I opened Google and read for 3 hours all the reports including biographies of the top 4 participants, aiming to expand the Wikipedia stubs or 3 start class biographies of the top 3 players.

Fifth, the essential ingredients of my edit are so notable: a) the results, the top 4 finishers plus the official top 16, the prizes, the quotes or statements, like for 16 years, Appleton waited - I just did not include Appleton's kneeling and crying before the UK Flag waving Guests, since it would be tabloid; and b) the Next venue or fight: Manila, on October, 2009, officially announced, all for the benefit of researchers. Sixth, Wikipedia:Verifiability states - "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." I supported my edits with more than 7 international links or references, with unquestionable integrity: # ^ sports.inquirer.net, "Pulpul's Magical Run Ends" # ^ abs-cbnnews.com, "Pulpul Fails to Reach World 10-Ball Finals" # ^ www.mb.com.ph, Appleton is 10-ball king # ^ manilastandardtoday, Appleton’s 16-year wait over # ^ iht.com, Appleton wins world 10-ball title # ^ dailytimes.com.pk, Britain’s Appleton wins World 10-Ball Championship # ^ billiardsdigest.com, Rule, Britannia! Appleton Wins World 10-Ball Championship # ^ sports.inquirer.net, Appleton nips Wu for title; Pulpul 4th # ^ insidepoolmag.com, Dynamite Blasts World 10-Ball Championship # ^ abs-cbnnews.com, Appleton makes history as 1st World Ten Ball champ

Seventh, as a lawyer and judge, since 1984 and 1999, respectively, I state that - our Philippine copyright law, the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, officially known as Republic Act No. 8293 is partly based on United States copyright law and the principles of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. As a rule of thumb, there is no copy vio, if less than 20% of the news, report, article, etc. are copy pasted, in books, encyclopedias, thesis, etc. It is the judgment call of the editor to use his own words, to the detriment of the work. And quotations are part of, and the heart and soul of the book or Wikipedia. I, however, respect, your amendment of my edits, to correct grammar, words, spelling, etc. Wikipedia:Copyright violations states - "Dealing with copyright violations - If you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text." Wikipedia:Notability states - If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Eighth - 2008 results = is current - and now finished.

Ninth, under Wikipedia:Harassment - Max and User:Cma violated this "Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks. All my edits are daily and unceasingly guarded by the two, which is stalking. I petitioned to block them but my adopter wisely cautioned me to wait for further evidence.

Wikipedia is a community of co-equal editors-administrators. Many articles are start-classes, and are requested to be expanded. In fact, even my created articles are not mine. They were and are being edited and expanded or even trimmed, by community of Wikipedia editors. We are just co-equal here. While it is your unceasing judgment call as editor, to daily review all and revert some of my edits, it is your choice, with User:Cma. IN TIME, most of your reverts are in turn deleted or reverted by others, to my edits. And, I don't mind my edits deleted or reverted by no-conflict-of-interest editors, and hard working ones, for Wikipedia articles are slowly growing. I decided to let you do your editing, as I respect foreign editors, and for sure, I will have time, later, to en masse review, revise, reverse, modify, amend and/or revert in full, all of your edits-reverts of my contributions, with reasons. Maybe, this month, I will review and revert all your edits, since last year, with Wikipedia rules citation, under the guidelines of 3-r revert rules on blocking.

And tenth, Wikipedia is a philosophy-contribution by hard-working editors. With 6,141 edits, today, and being entitled to display the Most Excellent Grognard, Wikipedia Vest Pocket Edition, I gave my best to Wikipedia, with hard evidence. I am under adopter User:Diligent Terrier who stated:"The edit you made regarding my adoptions was completely unnecessary, and you were disrupting Wikipedia (and my time) to illustrate your point. Even worse, you lied in the edit summary, saying that I said I was no longer accepting any adoptees. This is very disappointing. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 19:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I don't any more time for your nonsense. I'm adopting to help out here; I'm not on an evil diligent quest to accumulate more adoptees. I'm helping Wikipedians that are new, and I refuse to be intimidated by you into stopping adopting and taking your side on every debate involving Florentino floro. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 19:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)"--Florentino floro (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you are upset about this, but to me it is really, really simple. You added facts to an article, with 4 citations. Of those 4 citations, only one actually supported the cited facts, and you added all of this to 4 different articles. Just because a source does exist for something (e.g., a sporting event) does not mean that is must be added. And any facts in an article should be cited to specific sources that demonstrate the reliability of those facts. I don't have anything against you in particular. I do have a problem with "noise" in articles. If material is added that doesn't actually improve an article here, I am likely to remove it, whether it has legitimate sources or not. It's not about you, or about the Philippines, it's simply a question of whether the article is better now than it was then, from a reader-informative perspective. The 2008 event in question is certainly notable, but the material added here is full of trivia, and is also ripped almost word-for-word from the sources, making it a copyright violation. We're simply not allowed to do that. I'll see what I can do with the material, and, well, either you'll like it or you won't; I can't predict the future. But I do have some experience working with sources to produce encyclopedic material. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

References to the World Ten-ball Championship.

This article is about the pocket billiards game of ten-ball. Therefore, we should wrote information that mainly pertain to ten-ball itself.

Making references about tournaments of the game can also add to the article. But if a lot of that information focusses there, I guess that should go into a separate article. FoxLad (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I had contributed sometimes to some Wikipedia sports articles (especially boxing, even if my passion is horse racing), and found that there must be separate articles for yearly games and tournaments, like 2008 Ten-ball Championship. But since law is my line of expertise, I do not desire to create this kind of sports article. Thus, I just added or contributed in this main article. Let me inform Wikipedians, that, first, this Ten-ball had just been born amid deep controversies. In fact, it was first done here amid protests and even non-participation by our to Filipino players. But it was so successful, it earned money. Thus, I agree, that there must be another 2009 Ten-ball Championship, as officially announced here in PICC, Manila, for October, 2009. Finally, and anyway, it might not be so messy to retain my or our added very first 2008 take-off events, since it is, for sure so "notably first."--Florentino floro (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the world championship does eventually need its own article. For now, the article is so skeletal there's not much point in a split. There's enough sourceable material floating around that this can happen, but until it's in here, there isn't much to go on. I wouldn't want us to focus on the alleged controversies, either. That might be notable, but this the ten-ball article; it's about the game itself, not focused on squabbles to do with how the game has been administered to date. Pool has no shortage of disputes, so having this material in there somewhere is plausible, but this may not be the place. For example, nine-ball has been the subject of enormous amounts of disputation as to who qualifies as a professional, how and when pros get paid, and so on, but we are not clouding the nine-ball article with this; if it gets addressed it needs to be addressed at the UPA and IPT articles. For nine-ball. For ten-ball, we may well have a different set of issues. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Name of the game purposefully hyphenated

Resolved

 – MOS:CUE is clear on this, and the snooker game isn't named in conflict with this article anyway.

The game of ten-ball (as ref'd in this article) is deliberately hyphenated, to distinguish it from the snooker game 'tenball'. It may also be referred to numerically (10-Ball), but it's important that the hyphen be iterated to distinguish the 'ten-ball' pool game from the 'tenball' snooker game. Yes, sources and articles can be quite lazy about this, but it's a pretty well established thing. For purposes of clarity, it makes sense that when referring to the game itself, it be called ten-ball. When referring the a physical 10 ball itself, no hyphen be used. Maybe a bit persnickety, but without standard nomenclature, it lends to confusion which is important to avoid when you have two entirely different games in the cue sports that share a virtually identical name.

• The pool game: 'Ten-ball'
• The Snooker Game: 'Tenball'
• The physical 10 ball: '10 ball'

LoverOfArt (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Spelling conventions Wikipedia:Manual of style/Cue sports which agrees with you. Because of the nature of Wikipedia, being active in watching articles is the only way this will be kept consistent. Posting about an error found in one revision is not really useful; you're preaching to the choir to people who know the area, and no one who added the material will ever see the post. For example, the person who added "pocketing the ten ball early results..." this revision was by a user whose only edit ever to Wikipedia was to add that sentence. The first 10 ball error you fixed was by another sporadic user.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't agree with your logic that discussing this "isn't really useful". The presumption that the only people to make this mistake are the ones who never read talk pages definitely isn't accurate. But, good to know that the spelling conventions have already been laid out and are in line with what I said. So, we all agree. Hyphenated 'Ten-ball' it is. LoverOfArt (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

None of this is actually relevant anyway, since the snooker game is not called "tenball" or "ten-ball", it's called ten-red snooker, and has more than ten balls (just ten reds instead of fifteen), for medium-sized tables, like six-red snooker is for small tables. There's no article on ten-red as of this writing. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You made the wrong assumption that "Tenball" is supposed to refer to snooker with only 10 red balls. Tenball is much more distinctive than that, it being best described as a snooker-pool hybrid. -- Dissident (Talk) 16:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem with the tenball snooker link

Resolved

 – Bad link, and not the right name anyway.

The beginning of the article states not to be confused with Tenball a game played on a snooker table, and it links as if it will take you to the tenball article for the game played on a snooker table, but instead it links back to this article. Does the other article exist? Can someone fix the problem? If it's not a popular enough game to have a wiki page, then I don't think the "not to be confused with" needs to be stated, or at least it certainly shouldn't appear to be linked, if the article doesn't exist. Dancindazed (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you and so does policy. We do not disambiguate for nonexistent articles, and obviously this hatnote is a circular reference. Even worse, it disguises the lack of an article on this other game by making it a blue link, implying it does exist, when any linking to it anywhere should be a red link (if it is a notable game). You are a new user so you did not act boldly (caution is a good thing), but here yur instinct is spot on, and I can tell you that this is a very unusual hatnote that does not belong and is against policy. Please do exterminate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I turned the redirect into a stub that it's a game played on a snooker table, and thus created the article. Perhaps I'll add some info on the game after I learn it, but for now someone who knows anything about it is going to have to write something. Dancindazed (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Moot topic. The snooker game is called ten-red snooker, not tenball or ten-ball. No article yet, but see six-red snooker for the idea. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, wrong assumption. See above. -- Dissident (Talk) 16:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a game but a TV show about snooker. The disambig note is back, but goes to the right place now. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)