Jump to content

Talk:Billiard ball

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada uses different colors?

[edit]
Resolved
 – Nope.

True or false: This color system of Billiard balls is the one used in the United States, but Canada has its own color system (e.g. it might have 3=yellow although the United States has 1=yellow). 66.32.95.37 18:25, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I just came from a year and a half in Canada, and aside from a Canadian company producing coin-op tables that are fairly common over there (and, with real wood, look much nicer than the Dynamo and Valley ones we see in the US, which are also dominant in Canada), they use the same equipment the US and just about everyone else does. See saluc.com - there is no Canadian pool set. For pool, they have the "American-style" (intl. standard) set, and the WEPF/Blackball "English style" without numbers; they are THE major manufacturer, by a very wide margin (even Elephant doesn't come close, though they've been featured in a tournament or two). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian terms

[edit]
Resolved
 – Moot.

I think the part on the Australian terminology is ambiguous/unclear. Can someone reword this for clarity?Oreo Priest 05:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That segment no longer appears to exist; I would suspect that all of it has been merged into the Glossary of pool, billiards and snooker terms. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker

[edit]
Resolved
 – Snooker now addressed.

In the UK and Ireland, I have often heard the balls used in snooker referred to as billiard balls. I don't know about US usage, but I'd like to add a definition to the start of this article saying that billiard balls in general can refer to the balls used in any of the various forms of billiards. RMoloney 13:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are also slightly smaller and may weigh more that pool balls. 128.6.176.51 19:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article definitely addresses snooker balls now in sufficient detail for this article and links to the main article on the topic for more depth. Marking topic "Resolved".— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Snooker balls are standardized at 52.5 mm (approximately 2 1⁄8 in.) in diameter within a tolerance of plus or minus 0.05 mm (0.002 in.) No standard weight is defined, but all balls in the set must be the same weight within a tolerance of 3 g.[4] However, many sets are actually 2 1⁄16 in. (about 52.4 mm), ..." 2 1/8" diameter is really 54.0 mm, not 52.5 mm as stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.70.84 (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

[edit]
Resolved
 – Long since merged.

I think there should be a merger between the Cue ball article to this one. 128.6.176.51 19:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding! Will look into that. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]
Resolved
 – Draft guideline is at WP:CUESPELL and has its own talk page for any further followup.

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:

  1. "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?)
  2. "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 04:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marking this topic "Resolved" as the document in question is now "live" at WP:CUESPELL and has its own talk page for any further discussion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phenolic resin

[edit]
Resolved
 – Worked out in user talk and edit summaries.

Please do not add spammy claims to the article that only Aramith/Saluc uses phenolic resin. This is totally false, whatever claims they may make on their website. While some cheaper brands like Action do in fact use polyester, Elelphant among others also use phenolic resin (and as with Aramith, other materials in addition to phenolic resin when it comes to adding sparkles and swirls and fluorescence and so forth.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Saluc will send any company 'claiming' to have phenolic resin casting abilities a Cease and desist letter. They are the only manufacturer making phenolic resin balls. THAT IS WHY THEY POST THAT ON THEIR WEBSITE! It's published, sourced, and undisputable information. I'm going to add this into the article, unless you can prove otherwise, which you can't. Also, Elelphant uses a PDA resin - made in China. They actually uses pieces of bamboo to hold the number plugs apart in the casting mold. Donny417 16:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're past this debate now, in user talk and edit summaries to this article. I'd never heard the bamboo placeholder story before though. That would make an interesting addition to the article if reliably sourceable!

Sphere

[edit]
Resolved
 – Just a plain mathematical fact.

A sphere's "size", for any purposes relevant to this article, is its diameter, so we do not need longer-winded phrases like "size, including diameter". That will just be confusing to the reader - "what other kind of size could this mean?". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cue ball size

[edit]

Just to clarify my addition the other day - I know for a fact that at least in one coin-op model found in the US (couldn't tell you which, as it's been a while since I went to this particular bar), the cue ball is smaller, though only slightly. I'm pretty sure this is how the table distinguishes it from the other balls so as to return it into play when scratched. And this was a standard American 8-ball table, not some UK variant. (At least it took US currency to play it, obviously.) Anyhow, seems to be resolved, just thought I'd explain myself there. Lurlock 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to bet money that it is one of the older tables that sorts by weight, and that the cue ball is slightly heavier than the object balls (one of the ceramic ones; they feel different, and are usually colder to the touch, and wear differently, getting odd micro-pits in them after several years). That it is also slightly smaller probably simply means that the cue ball is a replacement and the bar (or more likely the vending machine company that actually owns the table) didn't bother to ensure that the ball sizes matched. Unless it's very old, very new or very local, there is no US- or Canada-based manufacturer of bar tables that intentionally uses smaller cue balls. I've played in both countries, on both coasts and many places in between, since ca. 1990, and like you I have occasionally seen cue balls that obviously don't match the rest of the set and were undersized; in those cases they were definitely the heavy, cheap ceramic balls ("rocks"), with no brandname/logo on them, and the tables were standard Dynamo and Viking tables, unremarkable in any way. The shop I used to frequent in San Francisco had about a dozen kinds of cue balls, and these were by far the cheapest and least desired (I think they were $4.99). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that the balls went down a track with a hole in it large enough for the cue ball to fall through but not the others. Without disassembling the table, it'd be hard to tell, though. I didn't notice any weight difference between the balls, but a.) I wasn't thinking about it at the time, b.) I might have had some drinks in me, though I rarely drink enough to be really impaired, and went frequently enough that that couldn't have been the case every time, and c.) the difference might not be obvious enough to be easily detectable by humans. Anyhow, yes, it's anecdotal, but I distinctly remember a smaller cue ball on not just one but all of the tables at that bar. (I think there were 3 or 4.) Lurlock 13:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, first, coin-op tables use a magnetic cue ball. There is NO, NONE, ZERO cue balls made that are smallers, heavier, flatter, spiker, smellier, rounder, etc. There is a little piece of metal in the center of the cue ball, and there is a large magnet in a coin-op table that seperates the cue ball from the other balls when pocketed. Other than that, they are identical in weight and size PER BCA REGULATION [7]. Donny417 16:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more plausible to state that none of the current North American industry players in this field still make tables that don't use a magnetic mechanism (even that would need sources! >;-) I know from direct experience that even major US-based bar table manufacturers including Viking and several others have used other mechanisms in the past and that these older tables are still in play. I encountered THREE of them tonight alone (I went to four different bars looking for a game, and trust me, in New Mexico if you paid $11K for a table back in '85, your bar still has that table!) Good, modern tables use the mechanism Donny describes (but is relatively recent; I recall when Billiards Digest reported on its invention!), and Saluc/Aramith even produce a regulation size/weight ball for such tables (expensive little buggers too; I know - I bought 3 of them for my "home bar" in SF because @#$%ers kept stealing them for their bars.)
Even so, a heavier ball (either larger and phenolic, or normal-sized and heavy ceramic - and yes they DO exist; they're quite common in fact, despite your assertions above), still to this day works just fine in these tables, because the ball-sorting mechanism works by tilting "trap door" (not a round hole as someone above theorized). Whatever causes the cue ball to go a bit off to the right side on its way toward the ball collection chamber will do it. They are sloped just so, such that a heavy ball will do it, meanwhile the magnet will pull a "proper" cue ball the same direction, and either way it gets off to the outer side of the track, it causes the trap to drop and the ball falls through. Sometimes this trap doesn't snap shut as fast as it needs to, which is why you sometimes end up with a 10 (or whatever) ball in the cue ball receptacle along with the cue ball. Basically, there are many many tables still in play that do not work at all with the reg. size/weight magnetic cue balls (it's cost me plenty of quarters getting them back, lemme tell you!), meanwhile I have never in my life encounted a table in N.Am. that would not return either an oversized ball or a dense one, but that would also return a reg. size/weight magnetic one. PS: Saluc also recent-ish-ly (i.e. after 2003, I can't be any more specific than that in this case) introduced a new mag. ball that instead of having an iron core has iron flakes distributed throughout most of the ball's mass. Still works with the magnet but apparently plays more "true" - they'd gotten complaints that the iron-core magnetic balls didn't quite play right, even though they certainly played better than the "grapefruit" and "rock" balls.
Yes all of that it anectdotal; not a word of it can be used in the article at this point. I know it is true, but tough cookies. WP:V says "show me da sources!" I've had my hands and eyeballs inside more tables than I can count, and I know these mechanism work the way I say because I've literally tested them, with the tables splayed open, with all three cueball types (four, really - also a regular tournament cue ball, which of course went straight into the big chamber along with the object balls). I've gotten to where I can guesstimate pretty accurately by looking at the table whether it will work with a magno-ball at all. Early models were sketchy, and only properly return iron core balls about 3/4 of the time; The early magnets weren't quite strong enough. The tables look pretty much the same, parts-wise, but you can guesstimate the age by the wear (modulo the bar itself; if it's upscale and neat, subtract a few years; if it's dingy and has broken windows and a malfunctional jukebox from being kicked too many hundreds of times, add a few years). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: It is getting to be pretty well-sourced by this point that UK tables for blackball (which is still often referred to as eight-ball, though the games differ signifcantly) actually does in fact use under-sized cue-balls. Steve Davis, of snooker fame, recently blasted that version of the game as "Mickey Mouse" because of the diminutive ball (if anyone wants a source on that, I think I still have that copy-pasted at the top of my userspace sandbox, so I can dig that up). I'm not on that side of the pond and so can't dig around in their table guts to find out myself, but I suspect that the mechanism theorized by Lurlock's second post above accounts for this. That's absolutely positively (again, this is my personal anecdotal assertion based on futzing with the parts directly) not how US/Canadian tables work. Or by and large, anyway; Lurlock's first post here mentioned having seen US tables that also used munchkin cue balls. Never encountered that personally, having played in New Mexico, Calif., DC, Maryland and Toronto, Canada, among other places on the continent, but I guess it could happen. Must be a minor manufacturer using UK-style ball sorting techniques, I would surmise. Seems rare, from my travels. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Hyatt

[edit]

I was trying to find more information on this person ( John Wesley Hyatt ) because he has a "stub" as a bio. I noticed that I couldn't find anything claiming he won that $10,000 prize. I did find a site claiming that he never won the prize [[8]].

Anyways, the site I listed might not be as reliable as the one the article is sourced on. None the less, I'm not preforming any major changes until some of the Cue Sport project contributors can react. On a different note, if anyone has any good sources they haven't had time to explore for cue sport bio's, the info would be really helpful. It will take some time for me to compile credible sources for all the bio's that need to be expanded/created. Donny417 04:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell if that "gospel" is challengeable, then by all means challege it! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding celluloid balls

[edit]

An unreliable source (no author, no references, clearly someone gathering facts and alleged facts from all over and assembling them without any personal expertise) has some interesting bits on this, but it is not enough to include this tale in the article here: [9]. That a flammable material might ignite during manufacturing is one thing, but just from the friction of impact on the pool table is rather hard to credit. I strongly suspect that this is simply a mis-remembered or intentionally exaggerated "adaptation" of the story of Willie Hoppe or someone even before his time, having a clay ball split into two during a championship or challenge match, because the table was too close to an open window in the wintertime and the balls hardened in the cold (in this story, the shot was going to score, but the ball split in two after coming off the cushion, and the two halves forked, of course, away from each other, neither hitting the object ball. The ref ruled that it was a miss, and an "act of God", but that if either half had struck the object ball, it would have been a legal point.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21 Ball

[edit]
Resolved
 – Questions and requests addressed.

I saw pictures of #16 balls, #17 balls, #18 balls, #19 balls, #20 balls, and even #21 balls on Google! Go find them if you don't believe me!--Mathexpressions 04:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Why the combative tone? How could anyone present the stance that they don't believe you, before you've even presented anything to disbelieve? Aside from that fact that "I saw it on Google!" is about the most meaningless thing that could possibly be said, in this case you happen to be correct (by chance, having found something real instead of random photoshop hijinks). See Baseball pocket billiards. This is hardly news.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any images of these balls online. Anyone able to upload these?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker ball size in inches

[edit]

It is true 52.5 mm is close to 2 1⁄15 inches. But, as mentioned in inch article, "Subdivisions of an inch are typically written using dyadic fractions". What means they should be powers of two, for example 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 and 1/32. Though it requires quite large divider to get close enough to 52.5 mm. 85.217.33.150 (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Billiard ball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Billiard ball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Billiard ball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English dialect

[edit]
FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Billiard table#English dialect; the discussion there about which variant of English to use has implications for this article as well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  13:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File nominated for deletion on commons

[edit]
file:c:File:A set of billard balls.jpg Reason:The file doesn't enough size to prove the originality, and is too small for copyright licensing. subpage:link

Message automatically deposited by a robot on 09:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harideepan (talk • contribs)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Billiards

[edit]

The article makes no mention of the game if billiards. Played with three ivory balls, historically. 166.181.80.62 (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Billiard_ball&oldid=1243122951"