Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Portal:Poker

This Portal:Poker was established today without any prior discussion here. Rather than put it up for deletion, I thought a discussion should take place about such a page and how it can fit in with the WikiProject Poker. It seems to me to be constrcuted currently in a way to be very contentious in the future, but I suppose a page that directs people to poker content would be useful if it wasn't as apparently random. What do folks think about what, if anything, should be on that page? 2005 23:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a section devoted to poker players would be particularly appropriate there. A section for World Series of Poker articles would seem to also be a high priority too. Rray 23:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys, sorry for stepping on you toes here. I'm running a similar portal on the Norwegian WP and noticed that there wasn't any here. Somehow I missed this wikiproject. I would appreciate any contribution. The portal is still very much under construction, and I would not resist any changes that would make this portal better suited for this project. I would also very much like to contribute to this project and if nobody wouldn't mind I'll add my name to the list. Babaroga 07:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Please feel free to do so. Welcome. Essexmutant 07:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I will stop working on the portal until it's been discussed and decided how the portal should look and what it should contain. Babaroga 10:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Gaaahhh, my eyes! I like the luminous snot look, but it'd probably look better in poker related colours (red, black, blue and white being the obvious). A nice image header I think would also add the the effect (though I realise we probably wouldn't want to deviate too much from the Wikipedia norm). On a less superficial note, maybe a bar just below the header listing all the most common forms of the game (and linking to their related articles)?--Hpesoj00 12:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominated for deletion

Since this has remained uncompleted, I've nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Poker. I'd be just as happy if someone wanted to take on completing and maintaining the portal instead of deleting it, but as it stands now I can't see having this stay around. —Doug Bell talk 21:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: the portal was deleted. —Doug Bell talk 03:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance at Texas hold 'em

Hello all - User:2005 and I seem to disagree about the relevance of a particular paragraph to the article on Texas hold 'em. Can others please read the discussion at Talk:Texas hold 'em#Online_stuff and comment? Thank you. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amateur Poker Leagues

Looking at the history of this project, I see that many amateur poker leages (which are frequently at the frontier of "legal" live play poker and laws about playing poker) are summarily deleted for lack of notability, not giving much respect to the category. Austrailian Poker League (AU), National Amateur Poker League (UK), and World Tavern Poker Tour (US).

I believe that amateur leagues warrant their own category (the Poker page lists most notable leagues under "professional events"). These events are held where poker, in general, is still an "underground activity" and are the only legal way to play without travelling to a casino (or online).

I have researched and added Amateur Poker League, and would like to add National Pub Poker League. The former claims Doyle Brunson as a spokesperson and sends people to major events from freeroll live play, and the latter has a tie-in deal with Mansion Poker, where players attain a seat at the Poker Dome. I edited the Poker Dome article to reflect that the seats do not all come from MansionPoker.net.

I play in the World Tavern Poker Tour (and casinos as many others do - many amateur league players are playing not only for standing, but practice that online or small home games cannot offer) and stay up to date on the legalities of poker in Pennsylvania.

I've looked at the list of players covered, and frankly 90% of them are not General Encyclopedia worthy. If the point of this project is to have and "Encyclopedia of Poker" on the other hand, then they make sense. That said, I believe the different amateur leagues and their structures make for interesting reading.

I would like to see a definition and split between listings of "Professional" and "Amateur" poker leagues.

I propose that Professional events and leagues are those that a predominance of those who "make the money" in major events are professional players (WSOP, WPT, etc.).

I also propose that Amateur events and leagues (LIVE) are those that a predominance of those who "make the money" in major events are amateur or semi-pro players (APL (US), APL (AU), WTPT, NPPL, NAPL, and perhaps the regional televised tournaments such as the Heartland Poker Tour)

A professional being someone who, successfully or not, plays poker as their main job. This covers more than top players. Unsuccessful (or simply unskilled in a relative way) players persist in every sport. Those that qualify for a PBA/PGA/NLB event or team infrequently but plays in lower tournament circuits/leagues as a living comes to mind.

A "semi-pro" being one who does not play poker as their main job, but regularly plays and places in "professional" or substantial buy-in events. These players have the skill to be a professional, but has not "taken the leap" to do so.

An amateur being someone who plays poker regularly and well at a buy-in level below that of a "professional" event, and does not generally stake themself into large buy-in events or games. Or, someone who begins playing with the intent to improve in order to be good enough. Amateurs play seriously with the intent to win and not simply "for fun". They typically hope to become good enough to become a professional.

A poker hobbyist being someone who does not play to advance or win, but to play the game at hand "for fun".

I, admittedly, am in the amateur category.

The "Amateur poker leagues" draw most people from the latter three categories, by my observation, with a plurality in the Amateur range.

The "professional poker leagues" draw most people from the first three categories, with a plurality in the Semi-Pro range.

Herb Riede 16:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no "professional poker leagues". The Amateur things are mostly just business ideas that have not reached a level of notability to to be included in the encyclopedia. Somebody playing poker in a bar is certainly not notable, WP:N. We don't need separarte categories for amateur and professional (for which it is the idea of the distinction for 95% of players is impossible). We only need articles about things to be notable, reliable and otherwise meet the criteria for articles. 2005 00:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, there ARE professional poker leagues, most notably the PPT.

The main point I make is that leagues (tours, circuits, etc.) in which the top players are most often those who do so for a living (i.e. the televised, $5000-10000+ buy in events) are far removed from leagues (tours, etc) where the top players are most often NOT professional.

And I take this only into account in live games, as online poker is more of a game of chance anyways.

There are numerous relatively non-notable poker companies and players in the project (I'd estimate around 20% from reading about 30 articles), such as Chuck Gorson, whose claim to fame is being a notable blackjack player, otherwise only being a legend in Vegas, which is not the center of the poker world.

I say non-notable because they are irrelevant to the poker "world" and not worthy of encyclopedic attribution.

However, if you consider poker a "sport" and not simply a "game" to make money at, then the distinction between amateur and pro must be made.

I don't claim to own the definition of a pro, but IMHO, if someone can make a consistent living doing it (or tries to), then they're a pro - If they only win a single game (no matter the take) and stop playing, then they're not.

Back to the subject at hand...

I believe that this project as a whole lacks a NPOV to the situation, and that notability (yes I read WP's article) has been established in the SUB-category.

I mainly want to contribute notable "lower level" publically formed leagues, which operate in localities where poker is often otherwise illegal.

However, my intent is to not want to have them under the category of "Poker_Tournaments" because they are of a different class from WSOP, WPT, PPT, et al. I want to keep them from "cluttering", or being percieved as equal to, the other massive live-play leagues.

If it would be better, I'd just remove the poker project tag and category, and leave it at that.

Other contribs from other people, such as the Austrailian Poker League, and the National Amateur Poker League (UK) are orphaned as well.

Perhaps if there is someone here with a NPOV on the subject, it would help. Herb Riede 22:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Negative Freeroll

I created an entry on negative freeroll. Please review it and ensure it meets Wiki standards and accurately describes what negative freeroll is, as this is my first wiki entry I've created... I'd also like to put an example from play to help demonstrate negative freeroll. Macboots 07:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I found it informative. —Doug Bell talk 17:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Harrington on Hold'em Vol. III has a more thorough example from actual play (Jennifer Harmon vs. Corey Zeidman)... could someone help me with an appropriate way in Wiki standards to refer people to that book for more info? It's the only place I've found that actually has a decent discussion of the concept... Adding a citation at the bottom doesn't quite seem appropriate. Macboots 05:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of poker terms

Unfortunately someone has again nominated the poker terms page for deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_poker_terms. Deleting it would create a bunch of pointless work recreating it as individual articles. Please offer your comments. 2005 10:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: closed as keep. —Doug Bell talk 17:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current deletion discussion (until Feb. 26)

Poker probability (Omaha)/Derivations for making low hands was nominated for deletion on 19 February 2007. I recently created the article. I previously put a comment on the talk page explaining my reasons behind the page. I'm not here to ask people to weigh in on one side or the other, but I'd appreciate getting some feedback from this project regarding the page. Please read the note on the talk page and consider offering your opinion on the deletion. I intend to develop a complete set of articles on poker probability—not only expanding Poker probability (Omaha) and Poker probability (Texas hold 'em), but also creating articles on Poker probability (Seven-card stud) and Poker probability (Five-card draw) (and others if requested). How I proceed from here will depend in part on how this debate goes, so I would appreciate any feedback or participation in this debate. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 05:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: closed as keep. —Doug Bell talk 17:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Razz

I think Razz is a big enough game to merit it's own page, instead of just some paragraphs in other catagories. Would anyone have a problem with me creating a separate Razz page? Wtbe7560 18:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, go for it. —Doug Bell talk 18:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The page has been uploaded for your viewing and editing pleasure. Check it out here: Razz Wtbe7560 21:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a nice article. —Doug Bell talk 00:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eights or better

Does anyone know how to play eights or better. I've heard of it in casinos but I can't find any info about how it is played. If anyone knows, could you please tell me or create a page for it. Thanks Mikehanson 22:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Eights or better Stud or Omaha? Omaha would be: Omaha poker#Omaha Hi-Lo and Stud would be: Stud poker#Eight-or-better high-low stud. Wtbe7560 01:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It's "Eight or better", meaning that an 8-high or lower hand is required to qualify for the low half of the high-low split pot. Two modern casino games use this: Omaha high/low, and Stud high/low. Omaha is also sometimes played with a 9-high low qualifier, but I've never seen Stud played that way. --LDC 16:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poker Table Article

I've started an article on a Poker table, but I'm new to editing, so I'll need help to get it decent. MJPerry 15:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] flop, river, etc? etymology

Where do these words come from exactly? Is it from the "flop" meaning a place to sleep? Or is there a story or meaning to these terms?--Sonjaaa 07:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Listing (+1) on player info boxes for WSOP bracelets won in 2007

Is there a project agreement set in place currently to list the number of bracelets won by players from this years WSOP to put (+1), (+2) etc... next to their total number of bracelets won? I would remove them from the articles on Phil Hellmuth and Allen Cunningham but I figured I would check here first to see if there was a reason for it. For example, on the info box for Phil, it lists his total number of bracelets as 11(+1), unless there is a specific project reason for this, I do not think this is necessary. I also assume there are other players this is on, but when I saw this on Hellmuth, I figured I woudl check another bracelet winner and Cunningham was the first name that I tried and saw the same format was used. Thanks. Pparazorback 02:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not what +1 means. +1 means an invitational, non-open event win... like the WSOP Tournament of Champions or the WPT Ladies Night. Any other use of +1 should be fixed. It's a common vandalism target. 2005 05:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poker nicknames

I've notice some recent removal of poker players nicknames at the beganning of thier articles,some I agree with some of the removals but others I do not, many players are explicitly known and called by thier nicknames while others frequently are not.

Frequently used

  • "Cowboy" Hoyt Corkins
  • Greg "Fossilman" Raymer
  • Amarillo Slim / Thomas Austin Preston, Jr
  • "Action" Dan Harrington
  • Antonio "The Magician" Esfandiari
  • Phil "The Unabomber" Laak

Have nicknames but are not frequently used in conjuction to thier names.

  • Barry Greenstein (The Robin Hood of Poker)
  • Allen Cunningham (Clever Piggy)
  • Johnny Moss (The Grand Old Man of Poker)
  • Phil Gordon (Tiltboy)
  • Phil Hellmuth (The Poker Brat)

That is to say people may call Phil Hellmuth,"The Poker Brat" but not Phil "The Poker Brat" Hellmuth. on the other hand it is common to hear Chris "Jesus" Ferguson.

Does anybody think they should be added back or all just religated to the infobox? ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 05:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a prior consensus to remove them from other articles. This action is different. Having them in the index box seems sufficiant to me, but having them also seems okay. I would lean toward the info box though because while some names are definetely the common way to refer to a player (and are universally known like "Chip", "Dolly", "Fossilman", "Amarillo Slim") some are most just silly things nobody actually uses (The Great Dane, The Tiger Woods of...). An exception should be made though when a nickname is the one used for the article URL (Chip Reese, Tony G, Amarillo Slim). Still, I think the editor making the changes should stop until there is a discussion here. 2005 09:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with 2005. I think there are three types of nicknames. Ones that are used all the time for the player (Amarillo Slim, Chip Reese), ones that are occasionally used (The magician, The poker brat), and some that are barely ever used (tiltboy, clever piggy). I think our policy should respect these differences. I strongly think the first ones should be in the lead and the last group should not. I would prefer those in the second group be left out, but I don't feel as a strongly. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
And "Kid poker" Daniel Negreanu? They call him that all the time. Which is why i insist it stays.

[edit] Proposal

After looking at the World Series of Poker official site I believe rather then trying to decide for ourselfs which nicknames should be used we should use the way the players names are registered here www.worldseriesofpoker.com

Here are just a few the players names off of their site. (these player nicknames should just be left in the infobox not also at the beginning of their articles) Without nicknames

  • Doyle Brunson (without Texas Dolly for example)
  • Ted Forrest
  • Scotty Nguyen
  • Daniel Negreanu

And players with nicknames listed.

  • Men (The Master) Nguyen
  • Chris (Jesus) Ferguson
  • Amarillo Slim Preston
  • (Miami) John Cernuto
  • W.C. (Puggy) Pearson
  • Ihsan (Sammy) Farha

Listing some of these players in the infobox only take way some encyclopedic value such as (Captain) Tom Franklin or (Minneapolis) Jim Meehan who have their nicknames before their names unlike Cliff (JohnnyBax) Josephy or Thomas (Thunder) Keller.

Other players such as James (Jim) Bechtel and William (Bill) Chen have common nicknames that are derived from their proper names. while other players such as Ihsan (Sammy) Farha and Yehia (Joe) Awada do not.

I think using their site as a guide of which names should be included at the beginning of the articles would be a good idea rather then us trying to decide on the fly. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 00:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems good to me. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea.Crazy4metallica 04:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FAC and Texas hold 'em

So, I found myself a bit frustrated by the previous Featured article candidacy for Texas hold 'em. Many of the votes seemed to have the flavor of drive by shootings, people just left comments without discussion. Because of this, I feel like I'm having a hard time distilling some important ideas from the failure. So, I come here to ask two favors from other editors. (1) Could someone read over Texas hold 'em and check for readability? No need to fix anything, just compile a list of sentences you find awkward, difficult, or otherwise troubling. (Of course, fix them if you would like to! :) (2) Can someone also take a look at the candidacy page, and see if you find anything useful there that hasn't been fixed? Again, no need to fix anything, just let me know what you find. Thank you very much. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Texas hold 'em/archive1 and after doing so I can understand your frustration. If I find anything that you're asking for I'll let you know, also if you want any new freeuse images let me know and I'll add them to commons, the site lasvegasvegas.com offer many photos under the license Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 (cc-by-sa-2.0), some of which may be good for the article. If I see something I'll run it by you. I'll do some research and try to find anything more about Texas hold 'em history. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 04:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Sirex, I'm glad I'm not crazy about the FAC. With respect to images, I found several on flickr. Other editors (including User:2005) were concerned that I added too many images. Personally, I wouldn't mind having one or two more in the article, but community consensus and all... --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The FAC discussion is not really related to what is best for the Texas Hold'em article. Many of the comments were not just useless, but unhelpful (in terms of making a encyclopedically useful article). Our primary mission is to make a good, encyclopedic article. Making it a FAC article is not a primary mission, but of course is something that editors can pursue. It's an important point. Adding pictures just to have more pictures is of no value to the article. At the same time, we have general issues to consider, like article length and kb size, which may not have the same priorities as a FAC does. Also, "readability" is something that needs to be considered in more ways than one. The article should not be catered to readibility to Wiki/FAC editors. It should be written for persons interested in Texas hold'em. While some parts should understandable to any person who can read, other parts can presume certain technical knowledge, or at least not dwell on explaining in detail some technical things. So, we shouldn't change the article because of a FAC. We should only change it because it makes sense to for the article. Those things usually will not be in conflict, but if they are, the FAC is not the priority. 2005 11:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly, 2005. In the fact, I said as much. Several times I opted not to follow editors suggestions at the FAC because it contradicted what I thought would be best for the article (one editor wanted the examples section removed). That said, I don't want to wholesale reject everything they said. I'm interested in trying to find what can be improved. That's why I posted this note. If you don't think there is anything, that's cool. But, maybe someone less closely involved with the article might. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deck color standard

Over the past few days, a couple of editors have been changing some of the articles to reflect a 4-color deck, and others have been reverting those changes. Do we have an established deck color standard? ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 16:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the WP:MOSPOKER, but I really hate the four color deck standard. I find it confusing and unhelpful. I've never understood what it's purpose is supposed to be. I would be in favor of adding the two color deck standard to our manual of style. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It would probably be best not to use the four color deck standard. Even though I prefer a 4-color deck when I am playing online, it is definately more proper to use two color when writing about poker in my opinion. Pparazorback 20:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Standard decks have two colors. There isn't any reason to use the four colors, and there certainly has been no consensus to use the non-standard colors so any changes should be reverted on sight. 2005

The only hypothetical reason to use 4 color decks, is if the hands being described in an article, 4 colors decks were being used in the actual tournament , since none of them do, it wouldn't be a good idea for us to include them as it may leave the impression to the reader that they were. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 15:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we all agree. I have changed WP:MOSPOKER to reflect this consensus. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Texas hold'em

I would like to solicit some other users input about Texas hold 'em. There is a disagreement, which is at an impasse, over whether the History section should go before the Rules section. I would appreciate other user's input at Talk:Texas hold 'em. Thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There is hardly an impasse. If you want to rewrite the article so that "what is Texas hold'em" is explained at the beginning (whether via how to play or otherwise) then that could work. Just saying you want to put one section in front of another is not saying anything. 2005 08:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mayfair Club

Well, I just created an article on the Mayfair Club. I would appreciate the assistance of those interested in the subject to add some meaningful categories and to update other articles where the club is mentioned.Balloonman 06:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poker players alliance

If there is an admin that frequents this page, could you please move the article I just created. It should be all capitals because it is a formal name---Poker Players Alliance. Also, I haven't added any cats to this article yet, so if anybody wants to help out, feel free to do soBalloonman 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks 2005 for the move...Balloonman 21:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Excellent work Balloonman on both the Mayfair Club and the Poker Players Alliance articles, Mayfair Club was something I was meaning to do someday but never got around to it, it was listed on CryptoDerk's old poker subpage as a notable subject matter that needed to be created for almost 3 years now. :) ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 22:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Balloonman, just for future reference, there is a "move" link at the top of articles that can be used for circumstances like this. Any editor can make such a move, you don't need to be an admin. 2005 22:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the praise and the info... the next page I want to do is on WSOP Bracelets.... it's a little challenging finding info about the bracelets as compared to people who have won a bracelet! But I think they deserve an article.Balloonman 04:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WSOP bracelet

WSOP bracelet is the latest addition to the poker worldBalloonman 06:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

wow... I hit gold today... if you don't have it on your watch list, you should take a look at the article now!Balloonman 22:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ciaran O'Leary

Could someone take a look at this article and help me in going about fixing it, even though it's rather new the POV content such as ""Big C's" Irish wit, charm, and ready smile, as his old world ways often waft through the poker rooms like a cool ocean breeze." is quite glaring along with being largely unsourced. –– Lid(Talk) 01:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have written the new editor letting them know which steps are needed to improve and fix the problems in the article, the editor has listed many external links which may be the source for much of the information, in which some of them may need to be converted into references, other information as pointed out will need to be removed or quoted and sourced to who said it, hopefully the editor will take these steps his/herself. I'll try and work on the article myself some time later. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 05:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Well, when do you think a poker player is notable? I did my RCP- round, and noticed someone had blanked a page- Ben Fineman. But the revertion shows it was prodded, for lack of notability. I am not very impressed by the assertion of importance here, "including a fifth-place finish in the $3,000 No-Limit Hold 'Em event" , is this person a big shot? The category American Poker players only states "This category is for noteworthy professional or amateur poker players from the United States who have placed highly in major tournaments such as the World Series of Poker.". In other words: What do you think constitutes notability in the poker world? Greswik 19:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless we really see a need to I would suggest against coming up with a notability standard against which individual players can be judged. Not only is doing so more work than it's probably worth, but it can also restrict us in ways we might not prefer. Instead we should probably judge it on a case-by-case basis. In this case, I think he clearly fails to be notable. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been of a differing opinion... I think there should be some guidelines. If we wait for an AFD or controversy, then we have no legs to support the keeping of prominent players. Guidelines will help defend articles that others might deem as deletable. Most people, such as Cash and Online players would have to establish their notability via traditional bonafide independent sources as is typically required. But the following would automatically incur notability:
  • Won a World Series of Poker Bracelet.
  • Won a major national/international tournament, including but not limited to: US Poker Champioinship, WPT event, European Poker Champion, Aussie Millions.
  • Invited to participate in a major invitational, including but not limited to, the Professional Poker Tour, Poker Superstars, National Head-Up, etc.
  • Made it to the final table of the WSOP Main Event
  • Made it to 3 WSOP/WPT final tables.
  • Won a confirmed $1,000,000 lifetime winnings.Balloonman 20:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has its own notability guidelines, WP:N. We should definitely not be looking to ignore that or write our own rules that are not in line with it. For example, 3 WPT final tables is totally irrelevant to the guideline. To be included people should meet the "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail" threshold. A person can do this via one moment of poker talent or moronism. Tiffany Williamson is not widely considered a talented poker payer, but she has gotten widespread coverage. Likewise some players are noteable for live game accomplishments, like Andy Beal (who would merit an article otherwise, but would merit one just from the coverage of his live game play. Another point, the $1million threshold would be a horrible idea, as people who played primarily before 2000 and were at the top of the poker workd will often not meet that. So, we should follow the general guideline, and then on subtle points perhaps have discussions (personally I don't even think this would be necessary since the guideline is a good guide.) Just coming in fifth in a WSOP event is of no consequence whatsoever... if someone came in fifth and burst in flames aftwards and USA Today picked up the story, then fine. 2005 00:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not proposing writing our own guidelines that are not in sync with the otherwise stated notability guidelines. Poker players are not really entertainers nor are they athletes---they fall in between the two of them. But what do the guidelines say about those two occupations? Entertainers are notable if they have a large fan base or have been in multiple films. An athlete is notable if they have competed at the highest level of amateur sports or professional level. That obviously isn't a good guideline for poker as it only takes somebody anting up 10,000 to play in the WSOP main event. The question then becomes how do Poker Fans define notability---what is comperable in this realm for notability to playing in a professional game or the olympics? The notability guidelines for individuals is only necessary when dealing with somebody of questionable notability. It is irrelevant when the notability is clearly establishable via various sources/texts. Thus, Tiffany Williamson may not meet the above guidelines, but she would meet the general wikipedia guidelines for notability. Likewise for Andy Beal---who had a book on his exploits. The guidelines are useful when dealing with a person who the larger world may not deem as notable... people who may not have much written about them. For example Alex Kravchenko would not be a contender for an article---but he is now a WSOP bracelet winner. Which makes him notable. If we don't have have something identifying what we consider notable, then it becomes harder to defend him if he was nominated for deletion. But if the wp:Poker project deemed anybody as a WPT/WSOP winner as notable (ala a professional athlete) then it becomes easier to defend. The time to make those guidelines is now, rather than when a WPT/WSOP champion is up for delete. For example, Philip Hilm hasn't won a bracelet---but has made it to the final table of the WSOP Main Event. I would argue that even if he doesn't win a bracelet, making it to the final table is equivalent to playing at the highest level of an amateur sport or playing professionally---thus is notability enough to warrant an article. Even if he does nothing else in the poker world. (Just as that 3rd baseman may never amount to more than a utility role for one season.) But the guidelines ensure that what the poker world views as notable is defined.Balloonman 01:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Alex Kravchenko has had multiple "'significant coverage' [from] sources [that] address the subject directly in detail". So he would merit an article. Philip Hilm appears to have one, so it would be questionable if he merits an article at this point. In general a WSOP or WPT title will by definition get you significant coverage, and it is a notable achievment generally in the eyes of the world. Making a final table will not normally automatically generate such coverage. So, certain things SHOULD get a person an article, but the regular notability guidelines offer a clear threshold for marginal cases. In other words, you don't need to have won a WSOP title to get an article; you merely need to meet the notability guideline. 2005 02:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Generally, this is true... but the fact remains that there WILL be cases where people not familiar with articles will challenge the criteria... and it is better to have an established guideline than not BEFORE it is needed. There are certain criteria which, IMHO, define a player as notable.Balloonman 04:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I am very much with Balloonman on this. As it is now, the community will have to fall back on default rules if some controversy comes up. But if Wikiproject Poker makes some rules, those will -unless they are really different from what you should expect- take precedence. So, this is all about deciding how it should be. Greswik 16:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a prime example of a solution looking for a problem. Has any article been deleted that that we think should have been kept? Has any article been kept that we think should have been deleted? So far, the only argument for developing this guideline is the worry that sometime someone might decide that some article we find worthy does not meet the general notability guideline. 2005 is right, the general notability guideline provides us with all the protection we need in this respect. Someone needs to give me a concrete example of an article that both (a) clearly fails the general notability guideline and (b) clearly has consensus support among this group. Otherwise, this looks like just more instruction creep. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles in need of help

Does anybody feel like fixing up one of these two articles, If you do one, I'll fix the other.

[edit] Poker event infobox

What would you think of creating an Infobox for Poker events like WSOP and PokerMillion (foundation, sponsor, location, buy in...) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punditbet (talk • contribs)

I'm not too sure as to what you mean▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 14:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New poker infobox

I was planning to change (Infobox poker player) so that if data isn't filled out to either the World Series of Poker or the World poker Tour, thier sections will not display at all, that way players like Jerry Yang (poker player) who hasn't even played in the WPT or Bill Smith (poker player) who wasn't even alive when the WPT stared will not have this displayed as part of thier poker profile.

Also when the (Infobox poker player) template was made it didn't include the European Poker Tour which used to be listed [1] I think it should be added back, does anybody else agree? see User:Sirex98/Sandbox4 and User:Sirex98/Sandbox5 as to what happen if data if either kept or removed, you can switch between the two examples by clicking the link below "Hendon Mob tournament results" (note: User:Sirex98/Sandbox3 is the test template)▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 14:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the infobox but haven't updated any poker players profiles except for Jerry Yang (poker player), which wasn't really an update but the removal of non-existence WPT stats, I plan on doing a massive up of poker players profile starting with English poker players▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 23:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice work. (I fixed a small bug.) When updating Gavin Griffin to the new infobox, I noticed that "wsop main event best finish rank" can't be left blank, if you do the WSOP section disappears. Is this by design? I think it would be cool to not have to enter None there. - PatrikR 01:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!, Yes it was by design, look at my sandbox for the test template User:Sirex98/Sandbox3, the last update was to change the "or" to "and" in order to force the information to be filled out by the user, otherwise people might just fill out 1 money finish, without entering 0 or None for Final table or Titles resulting in the " 1 money finish" only showing, I'll try to tweak it later (in the sandbox first) for what you are suggesting. fill free to mess with User:Sirex98/Sandbox3 if you like. results will show in User:Sirex98/Sandbox4 and User:Sirex98/Sandbox5▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 02:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I like how the WPT doesn't show up if no values are entered there. If we can continue that trend, I think we should add the EPT, PPT, and perhaps even a generic "other major tournaments". It doesn't hurt to have them if they only show up when necessary.Balloonman 05:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
There was a previous discussion about this. I would not support adding any more tournaments, if only because some info boxes would be ludicrously long and thus just a blur. The infoboxes are already far and away the worst aspect of poker articles as they often have incorrect information, and when targeted for vandalism they are difficult to police. After every WPT or WSOP event if someone decides to have "fun" by adding an in the money finish to some random player, it makes it it is a nuisance to instantly check if John Smith came in 47th, but even worse are edits just out of the blue that add one money finish. How many people waste their time checking the same addition? And if nobody does, that vandalism/mistake could be there for months. I'd like to make the infobox be strictly for photos, WSOP and WPT titles, and I wouldn't mind ditching the WPT. This is an encyclopedia, not an "its okay if some articles are wrong" publication. And of course the more tournaments included, the more trouble that leads... plus of course the debate over what is "major" is a no win one. 2005 10:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Good pointsBalloonman 14:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone could decide to have "fun" vandalizing articles that utilize any wikipedia template Such as:

These templates exist to enhance articles even though they can be tampered with, which happen from time to time, The main thing is that the infoboxes/articles are updated, spotting changes can be done like any other edit, when I update infoboxes, I find that the it's the articles themselves with incorrect information that needs to be fixed/sourced or updated, Articles can also have incorrect information about John Smith came in # place or won # tournament won X amount etc. As far as the WSOP, WPT and the EPT are all multiple tournament open events that are nationally televised tournaments offering millions in prize winning along with press coverage which is why I included them.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 15:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Series of Poker Europe

New article on the WSOPE has been created... help reviewing/editing it would be appreciated.Balloonman 05:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Participants

Why do we have two sections on the main Poker Project page dedicated to Participants. The first one is a simple link to the Category page for the Wikiproject participants. It provides information on how to add the template to one's page. The second is a long list that is hard to read/maintain. I think we should get rid of the second one and focus on the first. If somebody wants to be part of the project, then let them put the template on their main page. If we do keep the second list, I think it should be alphabetized. As is, I think this participants box is one of the more detracting aspects of the main project page.Balloonman 15:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and hope it's acceptable. But I merged the two sections on Participants into one. I didn't want to get rid of the one table so I created a subpage for it and added an invitation so that others could add their data, but I think the norm for wikiprojects is to have a link of some sort to their page identifying them as a member.Balloonman 19:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tasks/Recently completed

Another comment about the main page. The list of tasks---is there somebody/place where people contribute to it or is it something that people can add to freely? If the later, then I think we need to indicate such. The "recently completed" section underneath that---is that a place for people to add their articles as they finish it? Or is it only a place to report completed tasks as designated above it? If it is a place to announce recent articles, then I think it should spell that out cleaner. I also think that we should be cleaning that up better. Projects compelted in October 2006 are not recently completed. Finally, if it is a list of recently completed articles/projects, I would support moving it to a more prominent place on the page so that it becomes one of the first things people see when they come to the project.Balloonman 15:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I see the best reason for the recently completed task section asides from improving the project itself is so other editors are aware of them so they can add them to their watchlist, improve them etc, some of the changes that you are suggesting sounds like a good idea to me. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 15:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the reason for the recently completed task... but as it stands now, I don't know if I should announce the articles that I've written (such as World Series of Poker Europe) there because it wasn't a "task" it was something I thought needed to be done. I'd prefer it if it was a little more inviting for users to post notes to it. As it is currently presented, and as a newby to this project, I don't feel invited to add to the main page. For example, I am planning on an article on Jerry PollackJeffrey Pollack---the director of the WSOP. But I won't add it to the main page, because it doesn't invite me to do so.Balloonman 17:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
How do you think it should be written, and you're invited sometimes newbies know more then the rest of us :) ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 18:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I was bold and made some changes. Most notably I went through the tasks to see what has/hasn't been done and deleted those items that looked completed. I also eliminated the "In progress" section because many of those items were declaring pages that haven't been touched in 3 months to be "in progress." If it's not going to updated/cleaned up, then get rid of it.Balloonman 19:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User-selectable 4-color deck

As you know, some people would like a four-color deck in the poker articles. I did some work on making the deck type user-selectable with the user style sheet. You can see the results here: User:PatrikR/test. The two lines should look identical, but if you copy the contents of User:PatrikR/monobook.css to your own user style sheet, the lower line will have green clubs and blue diamonds. The two-color deck is the default, but anyone who wants to can see a four-color deck.

Executive summary of markup changes:

  • Now: 8♠ {{red|4♦}} {{red|Q♥}} 9♣
  • Then: {{cards|8s|4d|Qh|9c}}

The template is currently in my name space, i.e. here: User:PatrikR/cards. It uses one template for each card, e.g. {{cards/9c}}, which calls {{cards/clubs|9}}

Comments? - PatrikR 16:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea having users use their own monobook.css for how the cards display, It shouldn't be a problem although all articles using decks would then have to be updated for this effect to show, I think I would call the template cards or deck rather then (poker cards) because they can be used in many card game related articles not just poker▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 16:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I can change it to just {{cards}}. I included "poker" in the name in case people would want different colors for different games, but maybe that's not needed. - PatrikR 18:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I updated my post above to the shorter names. - PatrikR 18:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
So long as the default is two color, I think having more options for users is great. Thanks for the hard work, Patrik. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I've now moved the templates into the normal name space. Feel free to start using {{cards}}. To make it easier to convert existing articles, I also added aliases using the card symbols, i.e. both {{cards|Ac|Ts}} and {{cards|A♣|10♠}} will produce the same output: A♣ 10♠. - PatrikR 03:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles on Poker mainpage

What is the intention of the articles on the mainpage for? A list of poker related articles is unmanageable and would be huge. We are not maintaining it. I propose deleting. Likewise for the different categories. How long has it been since the WSOP or Poker articles have been up for FAC? Why do we have a history of all the deletion reviews on poker articles at the bottom? I would kill this entire section. If there is an article up for Deletion/FAC etc, then we can announce it here on the talk pages---where it is timely and won't clutter the main page. If we are going to have something on the main page, then I think it should only list those things that are active. Not debates that occured 8 months ago.Balloonman 19:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree the Main page of the WikiProject Poker needs a organizational overhaul, the "Deletion debates" for an example should either be placed in a subpage for future references or just removed out right, I think I'll look at some other WikiProjects to see if they may have a better approach organizing their projects of course some innovative ideas for this particular project may help too. Your recent changes Balloonman is an improvement.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 20:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
At your encouragement, I've been VERY bold and modified the mainpage... I hope everybody likes the changes---if not, we can always revert. But I thought the page looked very disorganized and weak. For example, two sections for Participants and related pieces of data at different locations on the main page.Balloonman 21:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, I've been looking at some other project, in trying to come up with some new ideas, It does looks as thought Participants or membership list exist in about all of them and I'm not too sure that all participants have the project category though, below are some of ones I've looked at▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 21:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Category:WikiProjects Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science Wikipedia:WikiProject History Wikipedia:WikiProject Cold War

The list is my least favorite aspect of projectpages---but I won't oppose it if somebody wants to add it back... it is currently on the subpage.Balloonman 21:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
the subpage link should be fine, I may work on the main page some later working on other stuff now, hope you get the GA review on the wsop bracelet article btw▪◦▪ЅiREXTalk 02:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)