Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of poker hands

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 19:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] List of poker hands

This is a group of topics which ideally lends itself to a list format. The notation used is clear and concise, all standard hands are included and all non-standard hands are excluded. I think it is an ideal topic for a featured list. Happy‑melon 10:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• The top image is not really good. It's a PNG, it does in an image what can easily be done in text, the text for some reason isn't right-aligned... beyond that, at a glance the article looks good, but that image really is not helping. --Golbez (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What do you think of this one? Happy‑melon 17:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • See below. --Golbez (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I would like suggest a new category for games. Games people play without a full deck or something like that.... -- carol 16:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Nice! I've struck down the extra real card images, as the text squeeze was horrible, and they were superfluous to the clean little hand examples, which I framed inside {{imageframe}}s. Circeus (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Awesome! Exactly what a featured list should be. Drewcifer (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • changed to Oppose - Have to agree with the sentiments with the top image: questionable copyright status. Using the other card graphics seems like a simple solution though, so I'll happily re-support if this can be addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    • See comments below. Happy‑melon 17:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Changed my vote back to Support. Not the ideal solution, as I think some face cards up there would've been nice, but it does take care of potential copyright issues. Great list! Drewcifer (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support As per above. Great use of images and mathematic formula. Hpfan9374 (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Magnificent. Well-written, good references and canny use of images. And a superb list idea to boot. Peanut4 (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - fabulous list. Informative, aesthetically pleasing, and comphrehensive. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - great list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - ticks all the boxes for me, a fabulous list NapHit (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• WeakStrong oppose That top image makes this list look bad, unprofessional. I even think that it's copyrighted. I mean the design of the cards is copyrighted, not the image itself. For istance, the king of heart should have this design, not the one that is currently on the top image. I'll support when I am sure that there is no copyright issues with the card designs. There is a reason why these cards were made.--Crzycheetah 01:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I am certain in my own mind that the design of standard modern playing cards, including the court cards, is ineligible for copyright. Note that the image is hosted on the commons, which do not accept copyrighted material. Happy‑melon 22:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I suggest you to use these card designs to rid of all copyright doubts. Plus, you are using these designs throughout the list, so for the sake of consistency use them for the main image, too.--Crzycheetah 23:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Since there wasn't any attempt to improve the top image, I am changing my oppose from weak to strong.--Crzycheetah 08:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
      • See comments below. Happy‑melon 17:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Crzycheetah's copyright issue tilted me from neutral to oppose, based solely on the top image. I still think such information can be handled either in a purely tabular format, or with an SVG. But, for what it's worth, what we have now is better than what we had when I initially commented. --Golbez (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • So what would the pair of you like to see?? If you really don't have any other criticisms, then this is easily corrected. Happy‑melon 22:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Copyright issues aside, the text in the top image is nearly the same color as the background; a diagram like that really should be readable without clicking. The rest of the list is perfectly fine. --Golbez (talk)
  • The free face cards you propose look cheesy and silly. The only copyrighted card is the ace of spades, which isn't used. the top image is of fine quality. Reywas92^Talk 02:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Yet these "cheesy" and "silly" cards are used throughout the article - are they only cheesy and silly when they're above the fold? --Golbez (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      • No, they're cheesy and silly everywhere, but we don't have any other individual cards to replace them with. Happy‑melon 11:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - excellent article, great to see this article in such good condition. Mattyness (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very nice. One thing that can be improved is that the many images of the hands should be on the right. It is annoying to have a image on the left, then on the right, then left, then right... It could also use a few more references. It is only simple math, but more links prevent the original research. Very nice overall. Reywas92^Talk 02:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason for having alternating alignment is to reduce the amount of whitespace and spread it out across the article. If all the sample hands were right aligned there would be vast swathes of whitespace at most resolutions on the left. Plus it is common to see images in articles alternating left and right - this one just has more images than most! This is one of the reasons I hate WP:V and WP:OR - the content of this list is entirely either common sense or common knowledge. Yes, it requires synthesis to get from the definition of a flush to the number of possible flushes... but everyone who does that synthesis, without exception will produce the same answer. It's been done thousands of times in the past, it's just that no one thought it was important enough to note down :D Plus remember that not everything has to be cited inline - references for the whole article are acceptable too, as we have in the reference section. Everything that is remarkable, like the "wheel" slang for five-high straight, is cited. Thanks for your support anyway. Happy‑melon 11:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support This list should be an example of what a featured list should be. Noobiemacnoss1 (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - looks nice, complies with FLC criteria and good prose aswell. :) Good job! Rt. 11:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I have now altered the Image:Poker-hands.png such that it no longer includes any court cards. This removes even the faintest question of copyright concern. I hope the people who have commented above find this an acceptable solution to what I still believe is a nonexistent problem. Happy‑melon 17:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.