Template talk:Cue sports

Emphasis

Please do not monkey with emphasis in this template unless you are an up-to-speed member of the WP:CUE project. We have a well laid-out understanding of what the important cue sports articles are, and why, and how they related to each other. If anyone has issues with this, they should take it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cue sports. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you think I reordered things. I just removed the formatting, which you put back in only to remove it yourself. - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't say anything about ordering, only about emphasis. And I didn't remove them all, just the ones that were unintentional, due to copy-paste error. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

NB: The general idea is that italics = it's a major resource; bold = this is one of the main actual sports (regulated international competition); both = both, basically - one of the top-level classifications in this articlespace. If there is something counter-intuitive about this, please say so. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Counter-intuitive, no; unnecessary, yes. - Dudesleeper · Talk 00:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; if you don't find it counter-intuitive, then no harm done, right? I've never meant to imply necessity, as in "people will be confused and lost" without the emphasis. But WP:CUE would certainly like to draw attention to resources it thinks will be of value. We're both proud of them, and believe they will be genuinely helpful.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this extra markup. Navboxen aren't best used as tarted-up WikiProject banners. Without the text at the bottom, which doesn't actually appear on the articles it's transcluded to, the markup is mostly simply wasting bytes. I'd like to suggest this be removed, following Wikipedia's generally successful drive towards the, erm, generic generic navbox. Chris Cunningham 18:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hightlights that we need more articles!

This template's dependence on the Categoryspace to have entries at all for orgs, players and events tells us that we need to create overview articles on these topics! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wondering why...

this template is being included on snooker players' articles. Is there a high demand from users to switch from looking at Jimmy White's article to go and read about Novuss? - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Until such time as the template forks into more customized game-specific versions this is the only nav we have, and any is better than none. I realize that it is not 100% ideal for all purposes, but at least it is providing resoruce links of value, e.g. the glossary, and giving people a way to get to the "top level" of the more historical/general information without having to do any manual searching or guesswork. I'm rather proud of it actually, at least as a start. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Wouldn't it also be beneficial to include [[Category:Snooker players]] in the necessary portion of each page? Then the user can browse by nationality, instead of first being directed to English snooker players, Welsh snooker players, etc. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried that sort of thing a long time ago and about got my head ripped off. Apparently it's a no-no to redundantly categorize someone like Jimmy White in Category:English snooker players, Category:British snooker players, and Category:Snooker players. An eventual more snooker-specific version of this template, however, would certainly link to the snooker player list article(s) (there are more than one right now, but I suspect they'll merge and have sections, with the World Champs at the top, and the nicknames integrated.) Snookerspace here has quite a few interesting list-style articles that nine-ball, eight-ball, three-cushion, etc., don't, so I would imagine that the first custom fork of this template would be for snooker. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't agree that having this template on players' pages are better than nothing. I would suggest removing it. I think it's clutter, and I don't think this is common for people known for other things either. For a snooker player, the word snooker is usually linked early in the article, and I can't imagine that it would be difficult to find if one want's to know more about the sport. Havardk 17:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Image with American flag

I suggest that the image on this template be changed or simply removed. A chalk with a U.S. flag is inappropriate for an international topic such as this. I'm saying this as a proud American. —D. Monack ^talk 07:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine; there's an alternative chalk image (see top of this page). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of image

Gnevin (talk · contribs) has suggested (and been reverted multiple times on the issue) that this navbox should have no image at all, and cites "Wikipedia:ICONDECORATION#Encyclopaedic purpose" (an invalid link to something that apparently is or once was at WP:MOSICON) as a rationale. However, I see no overall consensus that navboxes in general should never have images. In point of fact, a great number of them do, and the images (icon-sized or, as in this case, a bit larger) serve the encyclopedic purpose of disambiguating between navboxes, most of which otherwise look alike. On pages with several navboxes, the templates simply become visual "noise" of words and words and words, unless there are visual clues as to their purpose (e.g. a cue chalk picture in this case, a UK flag icon on a British topics navbox, etc., etc.) Discrete use of simple images in navboxes is an aid to usability for readers. At any rate, unless there is a general consensus at some centralized discussion point that no navboxes should have images, then continuing to delete the image from this particular navbox, in the face of opposition from multiple editors, is likely to be considered disruptive. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:TEA Gnevin (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider the disagreement heated. Do you? I'm simply being very clear. You're citing guideline material (or attempting to) at me and Fuhghettaboutit, I'm responding with precision. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your reaction is a bit over the top. The link I provided works fine Gnevin (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the link you were looking for is simply WP:ICONDECORATION, without any #stuff. The link you provide does not work, in Firefox 3.6.2 under Windows Vista x64 SP2 (didn't test it in anything else), probably because it redundantly resolves to "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Encyclopaedic purpose#Encyclopaedic purpose" since the expansion of the ICONDECORATION shortcut already includes the #stuff. The image here was not added "simply because it looks good", per the guideline. Sorry you think I'm being "over the top", I'm simply addressing the rationale you provided with a counter-rationale, and expressing concern about your apparent insistence on making the deletion edit. Talk pages exist for a reason, and all. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The image is far from merely decorative. It serves the immediate purpose of Identifying the template as cue sports related and does so quite elegantly in that most objects one might think of to use are related to one cue sport or another but not to all (this includes cues to a trained eye, e.g., a snooker cue or a billiards cues looks completely different to me than does a pool cue) but chalk bridges all of the cue sports. Seeing your edit summary I read WP:MOSICON from beginning to end and found it inapplicable (though even if it was applicable, we would have to see if it made sense in this instance and not apply it reflexively). If you will state a good, logic-based reason for removal, I will certainly listen. A bare link to a guideline has little swaying power.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Both are you are aware that this template is auto-collasped by default and from what I can tell only ever used on a page on it own ? As such its hardly lost in the "noise" and even if it was you'd have to open it to view the identifying icon you have to read Cue sports first?Gnevin (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit ,care to explain how this image helps on auto-collapsed template that is never used with other templates? Gnevin (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the wrong question. Care to provide any valid reason this image should be removed when it is not purely decorative?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it is purely decorative as it serves no identification or navigational purpose Gnevin (talk) 07:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That certainly begs the question by assuming what is at issue. Oh, I see, you think because it's autocollapsed and says cue sports this means you've already demonstrated it's purely decorative so you've squared your syllogism. We disagree about that. First, take note of the starkness of the word "purely" in the guideline language. For the sake of argument, let's say we're giving the subject guideline complete deference. Even so, under a plain language analysis "puely decorative" would not be applicable to an icon that ever provides any navigational or informational function. The language parses as forbidding this template with an image like this: File:Sommerblumen01.JPG, but not the image presently included, the significance of which a huge number of readers will understand.

I can think of numerous ways in which this icon could provide navigation and information. Many people do not know what "cue sports" means but will understand immediately and viscerally through seeing the icon that this template relates to billiards in general, whether seeing it as the sole template at the bottom of an article, or toggled on in an article with multiple navboxes. Many articles contain navigation templates that relate to different aspects of a subject matter. A movie article, for example, may contain, all at the same time, templates listing all other movies by the same director, other movies in a series of sequels and other movies with the same lead actor. In this atmosphere, a user who might idly toggle the template on and off even as a tic may learn what the template is about from seeing the icon, or they might toggle all three templates on in an article with many, and then easily distinguish this template from others below, above or surrounding. People don't always read or when they read they don't actually take in the information (think reading a sentence five times while you're deep in thought; you're "reading" but it's not penetrating at all). A person reading a carom billiards article may assume that a template at the bottom is going to focus only on carom billiards disciplines but will be disabused by this overarching icon. A person reading an article on a game like bagatelle, which developed from billiards, but about which even a regular player may not know the billiards connection, might skip the part of the article about the game's development but see this unmistakable icon, only thereby learn of the connection. Hell, a person who doesn't read English might only learn what the templates is about from the icon's presence, where in its absence, the person would never have understood.

So, if all this isn't clear, I'm saying that far from being "purely decorative," which is the apparent standard under which you are removing it, this icon is tainted, polluted, obscene with navigation and information imparting functionality.

One good thing that comes from this thread: it gave me the idea to link the image to the parent article on cue sports and so I have.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care enough and past experience has shown certain users are totally entrenched Gnevin (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's very dismissive of what I thought was a thoughtful post. Let me tell you a hallmark of being entrenched on a position. It is not embracing reasoned discourse but hearing any opposition as so much noise. That is what your response to my post feels like. I am telling you right now if you cogently explained your reasoning, offering logical reasons why I am not correct, or showed that the net benefits of keeping this icon out outweighed those keeping it in, I could be convinced to change my mind on this issue. Your post above leads me to think you actually are entrenched: unwilling to take a considered approach; not able to be convinced otherwise; cemented on your decided position. C'est la vie.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Section order

I propose that the World Championship section be put above the section for the misc. articles like the glossary, the techniques article, and the equipment articles. The former are of far greater average reader interest than the latter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The equipment is something that every player will use regardless of level, as they're required for any game, and is more fundamental to the definitions of the games, meaning that they'll have far more interest to readers unfamiliar with the sports. Whereas the championships are really only of interest to those already following the sports, and are far more specific and limited in their potential audience. oknazevad (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Using page-view stats from http://stats.grok.se/ (drop back 1 day if it spits and error at you when you try to search), World Snooker Championship was viewed over 25,000 times in last 90 days. Cue stick only 8,700 times. WPA World Nine-ball Championship 3,200 times. But Billiard table almost 25,000 times. It's kind of a toss-up. Glossary of cue sports terms gets almost 29K, but it's very heavily linked-to, sometimes dozens of times per article; no one is searching for it, we're leading them to it in-context. Cue sports techniques gets about 2,700 in the same time-frame; even the comparatively little-known World Cup of Pool beats that at nearly 3,500. World Straight Pool Championship 1,700; Six-red World Championship 1,800; WPA World Ten-ball Championship about 1,000; WPA World Eight-ball Championship, 1,500; World Pool Masters Tournament, 1,300; List of WPA World Nine-ball champions, 5,000. But what about List of world snooker champions? Try 28,000. Billiard ball gets only 15,000 and change, less than I would have expected. Billiard hall, under 1,600, and Rack (billiards) 2,800. So, ignoring all the low-count items, we have 28,000 + 25,000 + 3,500 for the top three champion[ship]s articles, vs. 25,000 + 15,000 + 8,700 for the top three gear articles. The glossary would make it 29,000 + 25,000 + 15,000, but that would be very misleading; the majority of traffic to that article is actually from player and event articles. Conclusion: Stats wise, it's pretty close to evenly split. So, I'm basically neutral on the question at this point. I notified both WT:CUE and WT:SNOOKER of this thread, and asked for input from the navbox project, to get a cue-sports-unconnected viewpoint.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)