Talk:Rack (billiards)

Cleanup

This article requires cleanup. A lot of the game information is duplicated over the specific game article pages. It can be cut down to size and perhaps a page just for all billiard game equipment should be made. 128.6.176.51 20:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

While there is some duplication of information in other articles, as far as I can tell, all is appropriately contextual, i.e., one can't just launch into intergame racking in straight pool without describing the necessity for intergame racking. I think your concern may be addressed by: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This is also not an article solely on the rack as equipment, but as racking is done in specific games, which would be inappropriate in an article on equipment, as you suggest it could be merged with. In fact, the equipment portion of the article is four sentences. While I'm sure this article can be improved, I don't think it is a candidate for "cleanup" as that word is used in Wikipedia.

I do agree with you, though, that Pocket (billiards) is (at least presently) a useless article, basically giving the dictionary definition of a pool table and little else. That article could be salvageable as an article more in keeping with its name by focusing on pocket billiards, rather than pocket billiards tables. However, I don't really see a purpose to that either--we already have an article on eight ball, and one one straight pool and one on... so all that article could be is a bunch of summaries of the main articles on each pocket billiards game. While that is useful in the main article on billiards, providing an overview of everything under that rubric, it wouldn't work as a stand-alone subject I think. If you were to propose that article for deletion I would support the application. --Fuhghettaboutit 22:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd oppose (if you mean "Pocket billiards should be AfD'd"), on the grounds that at very least the pocket billiards/pool article can/should be a summary of the evolution of such games as a class. Whatever its text, the article needs to exist so that inputting the either term into Search here will go somewhere useful (and specific games such as eight-ball or nine-ball aren't useful targets for such search terms.) I'd suggest this is a discussion better had in WP:CUE's talk page though, about what to do about Billiards, Pocket billiards, etc., so the articles make better sense overall, with a good balance between describing history and generalities in overbroad topics like Pocket billiards and Billiards and getting into detailed specifics as they apply today in Eight-ball, etc. Yes?

To address the original respondent, I tend to lean toward thinking this article should not exist; racking (verb) for specific games can and should be covered in detail at those specific game articles, while there doesn't seem to be enough about racks (noun, equipment) that can be written to justify a whole article about the topic. The same may not be true of Billiard balls, though even that may be debatable... If the Billiards article is too long, then perhaps we need a meta-article about equipment, rather than separate stub articles for racks, balls, chalk, cloth, etc., unless and until such time that we have such a wealth of material about each sub-topic of equipment to really justify separate articles? Just kind of thinking aloud here. This too is probably more a WP:CUE talk page topic, really.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries. You would have to see what that article looked like at the time I made that comment. The actual unfolding of what it became shows the hastiness of that comment on inchoate content. As for this article, we already had that discussion:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 13:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you refresh my memory? I just did an overhaul at Billiard balls... Maybe I should instead be moving this stuff elsewhere instead? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I got confused myself. I was not talking about pocket billiards above but pocket (billiards)—an article on the pocket itself (which is still a sad, sad little stub for which I see little prospect of expansion). We discussed this article previously here (see the last two posts in the linked section).--Fuhghettaboutit 20:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Rack material

Resolved

 – Not possible to reliably source, because the reliable sources are biased and contradictory.

I'm wondering if this is the right place to mention this. How about mentioning that wood is preferred by serious players since it allows them to make a tighter rack? --Pdahero 07:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Aluminum is now the preferred rack of professional players since there is no flex or warping of the rack. I.e: Delta-13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.52.254 (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's completely contradictory and neither of you cite sources. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 10:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And some pro events mandate the use of the Sardo TightRack and other plastic ones. So, there is no neutral way to have this article say one or the other is professionally preferred, even with reliable sources, since those sources will differ from the position of other equally reliable sources, like trying to source whether cats vs. dogs are "better" or Buddhism is "better" than Zoroastrianism, etc. It's a "religious" matter. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Article depth

Racking and the rack itself seem to me, at least, to be a more than superficial topics. Racking the balls tightly, finding weaknesses in a rack, where to aim when breaking, breaking for optimal position of the cue, etc. etc. Too in depth maybe? --Pdahero 07:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My only caveat would be policy restrictions on writing "advice" or "how-to" articles, which are not encyclopedic by nature. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

This is not a full-on merge proposal, like anyone needs to pop in with Support or Oppose !votes, but just a return to discussion started long ago, near the top of this page. Every time I return to this article I lean more and more toward merging most of the content into game-specific articles and what little is left over into the #Rack heading at the glossary. It doesn't make any sense to me that racking for any game is better handled here than at the game's article, which actually seems to be the case with a few games here. It's just a weird article anyway. It's like having an article on "driving", with sections on cars, trucks, motorboats, etc. Or "ball hitting", with sections on baseball, cricket, field hockey, pool, etc. Yet it's named in noun terms, despite being about how to rack (verb) for various games. And isn't even comprehensive in that regard. It's not something anyone will likely search for, and even if they did, we have a glossary entry for them, and racking/set-up sections at the game-specific articles. Am I missing something? If this is not a good idea, I don't want to just go off and do it, even if I am a fan of WP:BOLD. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 10:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Claim about 9-ball rack strategy

An anon added this (I've copyedited it a little) to the article without a source, so I removed it:

Strategically, the rack should go:

   1
  6 3
 4 9 7
  2 5
   8

The theory is that each ball should be as far away from previous number and next numbered ball as possible. This usually translates in the break. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.62.246 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess there could theoretically be something to this, but a reliable source would have to be found. And I would think it would appertain when breaking one's own rack, to produce fewer problematic clusters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)