Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Poker Babes Bio

Ok, this is getting ridiculous... before this turns into an edit war, I'm asking 2005 and the others to discuss the various poker babes bios that is being added/deleted from scores of poker players. I mean, I have about 40 pages that are being recycled 2 or 3 times each where the link has been deleted, added, and deleted again. Before we go through all of them again, let's discuss them.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't much of an issue here. User:DegenFarang has been adding links to his website theplayr.com. A couple of these seem fine, but they are unsigned so I removed one very contentious one on a BLP and upgraded one on Peter Eastgate to a Pokerstars owned offical-ish one (pokerstars owns the EPT). In repsonse he went and removed links to several sites that had been added by Sirex98, Rray, CryptoDerk and many other editors, apprently because among other sites I've cited that one this past week. He stated on my talk page that he was doing the reverts to get back at me for interfering with his using of the Wikipedia. I explained policies on his talk page User_talk:DegenFarang and hopefully that will resolve things. 2005 (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Since User:DegenFarang stated on 2005's user page that his intent by removing these links was to retaliate against 2005, it seems that reverting his bad faith edits was completely appropriate. The Poker Babes profiles provide a unique perspective to these articles that isn't necessarily available at many other sites, as she's writing from the perspective of a professional poker player who's actually acquainted with the people she's profiling. It's actually the perfect example of an appropriate external link. Rray (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, he also removed links to the Las Vegas Sun, Allin Magazine, Pokerlistings, Poker King and a few other websites. He was just hacking away at articles I recently edited, or that had Poker babes links that were added by lots of editors, the title of this section isn't really the point. The issue is links to theplayr.com that he has added, and when/if they are appropriate. Obviously it isn't appropriate to make slashing non-content changes to dozens of articles just because he is pissed off about me changing a theplayr.com link to a Pokerstars one. The key articles in question are Amarillo Slim and Peter Eastgate.) 2005 (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

90%+ of the poker-babes.com links are from 2005 (in fact 100% of the ones I viewed were from him). I'm very well versed in the poker world and have never once heard of this website, and I know of EVERY site. For this site to have 200+ links on Wikipedia is ridiculous, especially when they are nearly all added by the same user. Either 2005 owns that site or he is being paid by them...and for him to add them to nearly every single poker players profile is obvious and blatant spam, and it needs to be removed. Even if PokerListings or PokerNews were listed that often, I would say that it is spam...but for a totally unknown and very ugly and old site to have that many prominent links only degrades wikipedia. Those links are spam and they need to go. The secondary issue will only detract from this point and it isn't the proper place...but I did take notice of this because 2005 has repeatedly called ThePlayr.com an 'unreliable source' and he has reverted 90% of my edits in the last week. It is quite frustrating to make sincere efforts to improve Wikipedia and have the same user constantly insult you and remove your edits. At the very least, 2005 should be counseled for how to treat new members with respect. At the most, you might consider banning him for spam and, for lack of a better term, anti competitive practices. He has a clear linking agenda and calls any site which does not appear on his list 'non reliable' and replaces them with fringe and unknown sites that he approves us, but which add no more value to wikipedia as a whole.DegenFarang (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tried very hard to explain things to you, but to just go ahead and make up stuff is not helping your cause. It's easy to see a wide variety of editors have added those poker-babes links. CryptoDerk added most of them as they were the original source for most of the poker articles he created in 2004. The two sites I add most links to are Pokernews.com and Thehendonmob.com. I've added some links to Poker-babes like to Cardroom, which had a no refs tag. I added links to Bicycle Casino, The Commerce Casino, New York Times and Poker babes. The first two are third and first largest cardrooms in the world, the Times is the Times, the Poker babes article is written by a former host of the Bicycle casino's No Limt section and also worked for Hawaiian gardens, the fourth or fifth largest cardroom in the world. This is expert opinion from a top of the line, signed, source from one of the largest poker websites online, owned by a professional player. And, it is referencing a non-controversial topic (how rake is taken). This is exactly how to source articles... expert source, saying something not controversial. But properly sourced articles isn't the issue here really. there are two issues 1) don't just slash a bunch of articles because someone has changed your edits, and tried to explain the Wikipedia's guideliens and polcies to you; 2) theplayr.com weakness as a source for some of the additions you have made. Seriously, how do you justify saying theplayr.com is a better source for winning that EPT tournament than the Pokerstars link? As I explained on your talk page, if you just follow the guidelines, and add theplayr.com links when appropriate and not go ballastic when one is removed for a clearly superior one, then you could productively contribute here. However only adding theplayr.com links is WP:SPA single purpose action, which isn't a very good way to approach editing. 2005 (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it appears that User:DegenFarang was not acting entirely in good faith, given the tone in responses left on other user talk pages.[1] However, I don't agree with the comment that poker-babes.com is "the perfect example of an appropriate external link". It looks like a blog with few to no sources for its content. It's possible that all the content is correct, but it's not easy to verify the correctness without sources, and it's difficult to distinguish between the commentary and the facts on the linked bio pages. Plastikspork (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I stated "perfect example" about a specific link. And yes, a casino executive explaing what cardroom rake is, is a "perfect" example of an external link. In terms of the link that brought you here, the owner of that site is a professional femal tournament player who knows and has played with Jean-Robert Bellande, and according to the artcile also viewed him when she was the commentor for the "Live at the Bike" internet broadcast/TV show that was broadcast from the Bicycle Casino. This again is clearly expert opinion, but she also thinks he's not a very good player, which is her opinion, so a case could be made that link could be removed. However, the rather mild commentary of an expert player, broadcast commentator, tournament winner is generally what would be considered a very good link. 2005 (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Egods he is off again vandalizing articles. It appears reasoning with him just isn't going to work. 2005 (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

He removed a link that I included on my original draft of the Tiffany Michelle article. It's not the most notable poker site in the world, but it's not the least notable either. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I blocked him for an hour with a message that if he continues that he will be blocked for longer than an hour. I will admit, I have questions about the Poker Babe website, but wantonly deleting and basically announcing the intent to go after a users edits... it after a discussion has been started is not the way to go.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 03:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's now looking like that's just his smokescreen. Among his reverts are the ones restoring his links, like here, where there is no mention of Poker babes on the site, and he removes links to the Las vegas Sun and Pokerstars to add his link instead. 2005 (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia and I don't know how the process works when you disagree with somebody, so I apologize for going outside of protocol here. I went back and forth with 2005 on the Amarillo slim article and asked him several times how we can resolve our differences and his only response was 'do not change this article again'. The way he conducts himself is as if he is in charge of every article he edits and everything I have read about Wikipedia says that this type of an approach goes against the spirit of this site. Now on to this issue, the facts that 2005 has displayed here should show you his motivation. He has slanted and misrepresented nearly everything he has said about this incident. He said I removed a link to Poker King, actually, I restored his deletion of that reference because he said it was not a reliable source (how could anything other than Poker-Babes or an Alexa ranked site of 10,000 or less ever be considered reliable by him?). He further goes on to say that many members have contributed Poker-Babes links. This may be, but I'd bet any amount of money that he has contributed the vast majority of the 200+ links on Wikipedia to this site. 2005, do you have a financial interest in that website, yes or no? Clearly you do. You are either the owner, part owner, or you do their SEO. There is no reason you simply add all of those links because of how great the content is. Well you have gone too far, now it is blatant spam and many of these links need to be removed. You also say that I was going around slashing articles when in fact of the 30 or so edits I made less than 5 of them were not removing Poker-Babes...I simply got lazy and undid some of your edits which included more than one link. I did not mean to remove the others, only poker-babes. My final point will be that I do not have a 'smokescreen'. There are multiple issues here. 1) I do not agree with all of these poker babes links and a separate issue, which caused me to investigate you, is 2) I do not agree with most of the revisions you have done removing my links to ThePlayr.com as well as to Answers.com. You seem to just want to remove anything I post and I want it to stop. You are not the owner and controller of all Wikipedia poker content and links, whether you think you are or not.DegenFarang (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW Many other users have disagreed with things I have added. However nearly every time they take the time to reformat what I have written into encyclopedic content. I added multiple paragraphs of content to the Tom Dwan and Phil Hellmuth articles, among others. Maybe I'm not great at the rules, but I am contributing far more than links. Instead of simply deleting all of my edits, why don't you reformat them like other people do, so what I have contributed can be built upon? WRT the Hellmuth article, I spent a half hour writing the new cheating section, I think it is fair for me to have my link remain because of that. There are multiple references to that same issue, there is absolutely no reason why mine can't be one of them...and ThePlayr.com is a more than reliable source on this, especially if you consider Poker-Babes the holy grail of poker sites.DegenFarang (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to first part, edit conflict):I've explained this to you several times, but you just ignored everything and just lashed out. And you never even responded directly to any edit comments that explained my actions. For example, as I pointed out, Answers.com uses content from here, so using a Answers.com as a source is basically a self-reference to the article. Instead of being belligerent it would have been nice if you discussed that. The issue of you primarily adding links to theplayr.com is separate. As I explained, that could be done under certain circumstances, but again you had no interest in even discussing or understanding why a more official link like the Pokerstars one is more appropriate on the Peter Eastgate article than theplayr.com one. Even if you disagree, you can ask people here to have a look. Just follow the guidelines and play nicely with others and if you contribute positively to the Wikipedia it seems likely you'll be able to also find a place for some links to your website. Now hopefully you understand that and when I fix the flurry edits you made when angry we'll just move forward without any more of this. I'll ignore the rest as it serves no purpose here to beat a dead horse. 2005 (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(another edit conflict) DF, I strongly suggest you take a day or two to calm down before you continue in this discussion. You make some good points. Poker-babes is a dicey reference. ("Former casino host" is not a strong assertion of credibility.) 2005 has made many valuable contributions to wikipedia poker articles, but he does get proprietary about them sometimes. But rants about the matters don't help. Do something else for a while. (And it would be a good idea if everyone in the thread were careful with such terms as "spam" and "vandal", and use article talk pages more.) PhGustaf (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes??? But yes, things would process much better without vandal and spam being tossed into the equation. I don't think DF has to take two days off before continuing the discussion, I'm glad he is here to discuss rather than making mass edits like he was. IMHO Poker Babes is tenuous at best. While DF might have been pointy in his edits, that doesn't mean that he was wrong about the cite.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If anything, what I don't like is how this has been twisted into something else. The London Times and New York Times recognize the Poker Babes owner as an expert; and she has done broacasting and won significant tournaments in more than one game style, something only a handful of women have done. Likewise a 7+ year casino employee (not her, another guy) explaining how a brick and mortar casino takes rake is not even slightly "dicey". He's not talking about how to cure cancer here. Articles are supposed to be sourced, and I'm proud of the work that many editors have done to the poker articles, so I'm not going to let comments go by trivializing excellent sourcing that follows the guidelines. I mean, for pete's sake there was a no references tag on the Cardroom article for six months, and I added four great authority/expert sources. That is how is supposed to work. 2005 (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

2005, stop referring to ThePlayr.com as my site, it is not. It is just a great source on breaking poker news and if you look at my history, I like to be the first person to add new things to Wikipedia (as I also enjoy doing on Digg, Reddit and several other sites). Do you own poker-babes or not? Maybe you are not even a man like I have been calling you and you are exactly Shirley Rosario, the person who you keep referring to in the third person, and seem to know so much about. Anybody who has been using the internet for more than a month can tell you that poker-babes.com is an amateur website. Show 100 random people poker-babes.com and theplayr.com side-by-side and which one do you think people are more likely to say is 'not a reliable source?'. ThePlayr is written by a staff of writers and editors and is constantly updated...poker-babes are the first person accounts from several years ago of one washed up Bicycle Casino low stakes grinder (yes, I have played with and met her/you many times). Maybe my methods were not proper and I apologize and I'm not going to remove any of the links again without consensus...however Poker-Babes.com is clearly spam. You have it listed as an external link to nearly every well known poker pro. And you had the audacity to remove ThePlayr.com as an external link to Gus Hansen, a site which he founded and owned for more than a year and probably has more information about him than any other website in the world! Do you really think a Poker-Babes external link on Jean Roberte Bellande is more relevant than one for theplayr.com on Gus Hansen?? On to your 'points'. Maybe Answers.com is not a good link to show Chris Moneymaker changed the game of poker...but he clearly changed the game of poke rand everything I wrote there was valid and expanded Wikipedia. So instead of being a nazi and just deleting it on site, why don't you find a better link and expand upon and EDIT what I wrote, instead of just deleting it? And yes maybe a pokerstars link is a better link than theplayr for some of these things, but I'm sure there are many many many better links than poker-babes, yet those links stand. I respectfully request that you stop trying to 'improve' all of my edits, sources and references so vigorously.DegenFarang (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading all of the replies it seems nearly everybody agrees with me to some extend that the poker-babes.com links are or may be inappropriate in some places. From what little I have seen of 2005 I am certain there is no way he/she is ever going to simply concede that the mob is correct. He/she clearly has a financial interest in this site and is not arguing for the betterment of Wikipedia. So what do we do now? How do we get this done without 2005 simply changing the links back?DegenFarang (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying that everyone agrees with you is mis-stating the case. You're also supposed to assume good faith. Discuss the content, not individuals.

Most of these articles were started by another user (CryptoDerk) and Poker Babes was the original source:

Anyone here can "improve" your edits, by the way. That's the whole point of a wiki. Rray (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not say everyone agrees with me, I said 'it seems nearly everybody agrees with me to some extend that the poker-babes.com links are or may be inappropriate in some places'. Big difference, I qualified my statement about five times, would you like me to qualify it further? I also agree it would be a good idea to assume good faith, however 2005 is clearly not acting in good faith so that assumption should be dismissed here. That Poker-Babes was used by other users to start articles I am not disputing...the point I am trying to make is that 90%+ of the poker-babe links have been added to Wikipedia by one user...2005. I'm sure some of them are good sources and all should not be removed...but do you really think 200+ is appropriate? And an external link (not a reference) on nearly every famous poker player? I also understand anybody can improve my edits...however when 2005 improves my edits he just removes them. Look at my addition to the 'Poker' page, at the very bottom. That information was only valid thru 2004. I added a couple of sentences and updated it through 2008. However 2005 did not think my source was appropriate (I was citing that Chris Moneymaker won his way into the 2003 WSOP through an online satellite-an indisputable fact known to all but the most passive of poker enthusiasts) so he deleted my entire entry. That is not improving anything...improving would have been finding a better source and editing what I had written. I'm not asking that nobody edit what I add, I'm asking that 2005 not go around deleting everything I add. DegenFarang (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I will gladly have nothing to do with your theplayr.com edits and let those be up to you and every other editor except me if that keeps you from any more flurries. To clear up the misinformation posted here though I will point out that after I restore the longstanding pages there are about 70 of the Poker-babes links, not 200. And they were added by a variety of editors including those who added a single one like Absolon and Awinkler, along with a bunch added when when first creating articles like Sirex98 and more often by the two editors most responsible for building out the poker section of the Wikipedia Essexmutant and again and again and again and [2], as well as CryptoDerk and again and again and again and again and again for starters. These editors alone have over 40,000 edits between them, and needless to say all these editors are not me. In addition to The New York Times and Times of London the owner and writer of most of the content of the site has been quoted as knowledgable source by the Associated Press and Cardplayer Magazine. Additionally she has won major poker tournaments, been interviewed by poker websites like Pokernews.com and appeared in the Poker for Dummies DVD with Chris Moneymaker and Barry Shulman. 2005 (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake I did not use google correctly. There are over 200 articles on Wikipedia which contain both 'poker' and 'babes' but there are currently only 46 (austensibly there were over 70 before I removed ~30) which contain 'poker-babes.com'. I still think the Poker-Babes.com links, and especially their obsessive use as external links, are inappropriate...however I am new here and will defer to the more experienced members on whether or not they should be allowed, so long as 2005 keeps to Her word to stop deleting my edits DegenFarang (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles under GA review

Hello there, the articles Ross Boatman and Barny Boatman, which fall under the auspices of this Wikiproject, have come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the WP:GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line. Also note that the article on Joe Beevers will come under review soon and has similar problems. That article will be liable for delisting seven days after the review is posted on its talk page.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

FA?

Anybody else interested in working on getting WSOP to feature status?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that means or what is required but I'll help out. Somebody let me know what to do DegenFarang (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You can read more about the Wikipedia quality scale assessments here, Nominations for featured article candidates are reviewed at WP:FAC, It's there you can see how other nominations are reviewed▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 04:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I reviewed the quality assessments. It appears to get to feature status we have to first go from C to B then to GA>A>FL>FA, correct? Editing tips for B: Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with. So that is our first task, correct? I'd be glad to start on/help with that. DegenFarang (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to get any of those levels, you can go straight to FA, but generally people send articles for Peer Review and GA status before going to FA. I think the article needs a fair amount of work before we even get to those proposals.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 15:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

List of World Series of Poker Main Event Champions

I got side tracked... before starting on the WSOP , I decided to create a feature list. Please feel free to take a look at it and help out with it... I am particularly looking for a solution as to why the monetary amount for the tournament winning doesn't sort properly.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the flags per prior project consensus (a long time ago now). There are several problems with flags. First is how poker players are often multi-national. Why is Joe Hachem Australian and not Lebanese, etc. The worst problem is for Scotty Nguyen who, like basically all the Vietnamese Americans players, would gag at the Communist flag being shown for him. It shouldn't be up to us to decree or discern someone's country representation. Text saying birth country could be appropriate, but for the Vietnamese and Iranian players, sticking flags on them that they hate seems way past unneccessary. 2005 (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Jerry Yang in the photo. That's the Yahoo dude. I suck at pictures so someone else needs to switch it. 2005 (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Things I'd like to see done to the page:

Can somebody familiar with pictures find pictures for the missing people?
Need to add references for the 4 notes at the bottom. (Use the cite template.)
Fix the numeric field column.
Possibly tweak/expand lead.

It's 2 am, I have to wake up in 4 hours... goin to bed now...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 08:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've looked everywhere hours on end for freeuse pictures of the WSOP champions Jack Keller, Bill Smith, Mansour Matloubi and Brad Daugherty before for their articles, sadly none can be found.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 08:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What about Mr Varkonyi? Also, what do you guys think about the format and the content? Should we add WPT titles? I was thinking no, because most have not won one.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 08:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No forgot to list him, nothing on him either, Varkonyi & Daugherty might be the easiest to find in the future because they still play from time to time, Matloubi hasn't played regularly since 2001 with an exception of a single result in 2006, Jack Keller & Bill Smith are deceased and so a fairuse rationale might be acceptable for a copyrighted photo of them. also I don't think WPT EPT Aussies millions ect should be used being that it's about the WSOP.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 09:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, should we add the WSOPE Main Event Champions? I'm inclined to do so based upon the title of the page.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 08:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be good, as long as it was separated out with a second table or table break with a WSOPE heading. 2005 (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is now at WP:FL. Do not go there just to vote to get this passed, we don't want to anatagonize the regulars at WP:FL with the appearance of vote stacking, but I would appreciate any help you can offer in resolving possible problems/issues.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If anybody wants to start working on converting the total winnings to just WSOP tournament winnings, feel free to do so based upon the comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Series of Poker Main Event Champions.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 18:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, we got this one to FL status!!!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats Balloonman! Well Done!▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 07:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ladies WSOP Champions

I've created articles (stubs) for all of the Ladies Champions as well as created a list that I'm hoping to take to FLC this weekend.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice addition BM, well done!▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 08:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 World Series of Poker results

I am currently working on upgrading 2008 World Series of Poker results to get to FLC level.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/2008_World_Series_of_Poker_results is at FLC...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

1970 World Series of Poker

Reading Balloonman's featured list got me wondering more about the 1970 WSOP, which is a bit mysterious, I read on two sites that there were 38 entries not just six, playing in a variety of poker games.

see: this & this
a third, ESPN's WSOP page from 2004 gives an interesting history

also on List of World Series of Poker Main Event champions it reads "The first WSOP occurred in 1971" is it meant to say WSOP Main Event and if so wouldn't that make Johnny Moss only a two time WSOP Main Event Champion?

On a side note I know this can't be used without other sources but is interesting ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 08:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The ESPN cite has errors... I've read it before, and it isn't reliable in my opinion. As for Moss, even if you are right, it would be OR.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 02:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

still it reads "The first WSOP occurred in 1971" in the article, I assume this is in error?▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, although 28 participants is probably accurate---it jives with the "official" account, Thirty or so gamblers shoehorned themselves around a few poker tables. As for the 1970 event, technically it might not have been a "series" but it is generally considered to be the first WSOP, and as it conveyed the title of World Champion to Johnny Moss, it is considered equivalent to main event.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 05:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured List

Well, we have another FL List of World Series of Poker Ladies Champions---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 02:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats again!▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Now at FLC

2008 World Series of Poker Europe Results is now at FLC.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 08:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/2008_World_Series_of_Poker_results

2008_World_Series_of_Poker_results is now a Featured List.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 20:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

FTOPS V

A new user to the project has created an article on the FTOPS V, I just placed a PROD tag on the article and have encouraged him to work on it. (I considered AFD, but prefer PROD when somebody is actually willing to work on the article, assuming they don't remove the PROD without developing the article.) The article needs help, or it will need to be deleted. I'm not sure if even in the best of worlds the article is worth keeping, but I'm willing to let him try to meet that threshold. If any of you want to help him out, feel free to go by and do so.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 18:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

WPT Bracelets

Just as an FYI, I uploaded two images of WPT bracelets that the WPT sent me explicitly for inclusion on Wikipedia.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 16:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/2008 World Series of Poker Europe results

Real Life is preventing me from taking care of a few outstanding issues on getting this through FLC. The heavy duty is finished, I just need somebody to tie up the loose ends, otherwise this list which is all but finished will not pass its FLC... Hopefully one of you will accept the challenge and help it along.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 03:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

this is back at FLC.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

FTOPS nominated for deletion

The nominator didn't provide a rationale that I can understand since obviously there are innumberable sources covering the tournament, but it has been Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full Tilt Online Poker Series nominated for deletion. 2005 (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

PokerPages vs TheHendonMob

PokerPages is a poor source for tournament results where TheHendonMob is available. I think we should remove it in each instance where the same player has results on TheHendonMob. PokerPages rarely has pictures and many tournaments are missing-the page is also not easy to use/cluttered etc. It will work where there is not HendonMob page but where there is one, I think they should be replaced. I have just done this on Vanessa Rousso. DegenFarang (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not receive an objection or a response so I guess I will just start changing them...DegenFarang (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

While I have no problem with the hendonmob, I know that when I took several articles to FLC, the PokerPages pages were deemed more reliable than the HendonMob pages. I think if you were to make those changes, then you need to explain (validate) why Hendon Mob is a better source than the Poker Pages.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 15:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

PokerPages might be more reliable for certain things-I was only talking about tournament results. PokerPages is a fine website and certainly a credible source-but specifically for historical tournament results-TheHendonMob is a much better source. Just pick a few poker players and random and look at the pages. DegenFarang (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Texas hold'em at GA reassessment

See Talk:Texas hold 'em/GA1. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessing WikiProject Poker articles

You can now assess WikiProject Poker articles with the project's template. On any article's talk page, add {{WikiProject Poker|class=|importance=}} and assess the class according to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment and the importance according to how important the topic is for this WikiProject. Gary King (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And will this keep a counter of the articles on the projects main page?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Gary, what are the typical imporatance levels?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now added the counter—there are nearly a thousand unassessed articles, so get to work! :) Also, the importance levels are typically project-specific. But, my opinion is that "Top" is for articles like Poker, Texas Hold'em, and other variants—no biographies. "High" can be for people that are legendary in poker, like perhaps Doyle Brunson, and also we could include some of the concepts into here, so like Betting (poker). "Mid" is really for things and people that are pretty notable, like Party Poker, High Stakes Poker, Daniel Negreanu. "Low" is everything else. Gary King (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, if anyone wants to have a go at it, WP Poker has a few FLs, many thanks to Spartacus, so those should be marked as class=FL so that they appear in the table. Gary King (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And if anyone's got AWB, then they can use it to quickly tag each article. I'm on a Mac so I can't install the software. Gary King (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Poker content guidelines

I was just looking at Vanessa Rousso and figured I'd run my thoughts past you guys before making any edits to this and other articles. A couple of things that I think need cleaning up:

1). Unnecessary detail about her background education. Do we really need to know that she majored in economics or political science in her undergraduate degree? She's a poker player not a historical figure. I think it suffices to say that she's a current law student at the University of Miami.

2). Pointless list: "In the 2009 National Heads-Up Championship, Rousso made it to the finals of the 64 player field before losing to Huck Seed. In doing so Rousso defeated such poker icons as Doyle Brunson, Phil Ivey, Paul Wasicka, Daniel Negreanu, and Bertrand Grospellier." I can understand including a line like this for a borderline notable poker player but Vanessa is a well known pro. I don't think it's helpful to list off a bunch of 'icons' that she beat on her way to coming second.

Thanks in advance. Hazir (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree the #2 list is unneeded, but the education part seems pretty obviously critical to her. She was Valedictorian, and her key poker-related interest is game theory, so the econ degree relates to that, and the two and a half years for the degree certainly further implies some aptitude in her degree area. The political science one could go since it comments little on her current activities. Also then in general, most of the poker bios are thin, so since details don't hurt anything, there is no reason to not include what moderately interesting info is available on players. 2005 (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. 1 is useful, 2 is not.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Something that I've started to notice lately is a trend to highlight the amount of education in poker stars... I've seen several articles mentioning the number of Ivy Leaguers/PhD's/Master's Degrees etc. There almost seems to be a concerted effort to tie the modern poker player to being highly educated as compared to the Texas Road gamblers.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be quite a few game theorists that have begun playing poker in the past few years primarily because of their interest in that part of the game, though. Gary King (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

One to keep an eye on

I noticed yesterday [these] edits on David Steicke's article. I couldn't find a single reference to support any of the content, so removed it. The comment "With continued success, and no real effort on his part, David extended his investments..." reveals that the author has an axe to grind. It wouldn't surprise me if he/she appears again. Hazir (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Late Night Poker

I don't know quite what happened but I went on a Wikification rampage last night. All of the Late Night Poker series results (1-6) have been methodically checked. If anyone had this on their to-do list, you can safely cross it off! Hazir (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewrote Template:Infobox Poker player

I rewrote the template to use {{Infobox}}. It makes the code cleaner and easier to read, so we can add new fields if necessary. On the talk page, there's discussion about adding biographical fields, and I mentioned that I think it makes sense to add a few, which I will do soon. I tested the new version in a few dozen articles before deploying it; I didn't find any problems, but if you do find something, then please post the problematic article on the template's talk page. Visually, the only differences are that the box's header is no longer colored, and that the font sizes are a bit smaller, but that's part of the standard infobox style so I'm inclined to keep it that way to match other infoboxes. If you want to compare the output of the new template with the old one, then use {{Infobox Poker player/sandbox}}; you can just change the template and then preview it to see the difference. Gary King (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

To start things off, I've added a new field for a player's birth date, which will also automatically calculate and show their age. Gary King (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability

I'm sure this will be answered elsewhere, but what is the criteria for a player to be notable enough to have their own page - if they've finaled tabled multiple at WSOP events (or other big series), do they qualify?--ScribbleStick (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You can find the guidelines [here]. If you're still confused, run off a couple of player names that you have in mind, and I'll have a look for you. Good luck Hazir (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As Hazir said, there is a guideline, and as it says, final-tabling multiple tournaments is not enough. Basically, like people who are not poker players, a person needs focused, independant coverage in multiple reliable sources. WP:BIO is not a huge hurdle to player articles, but it is pretty clear that a person's name just being listed several times in tournament results won't cut it. 2005 (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The "guideline" is more of an essay. It is not a policy or guideline as defined by the the whole of Wikipedia, but rather the Poker Project's position on what makes a poker player notable.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WSOPE

Ok, I am currently trying to get 2008 World Series of Poker Europe results listed as a FLC. It looks like it is going to pass. My next goal is to make the WSOPE a Featured Topic. In order to have a featured topic, we have to have at least 3 articles that provide comprehensive coverage of the subject where every article is a GA or better and 33% are Featured Content. The featured content is already covered, but we need to get WSOPE up to GA status. If you want to help, I am open for it!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather see WSOP as a FT first, for fairly obvious reasons, but I suppose that that will have to be a long-term goal as it has been in existence for way too many years. I'm up for bringing WSOPE to FA status, not GA :) Also, I guess you plan to bring 2007 World Series of Poker Europe results to FL as well? Will the topic look like the following?

World Series of Poker Europe

3 articles

2007 World Series of Poker Europe results

2008 World Series of Poker Europe results

Gary King (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm game on getting WSOPE to FA status first, but once we get it to GA, then we can try to get the FT. I thought about the WSOP getting to FT, but I'm not sure if that will be possible. In order for there not to be obvious gaps, we would have to get all of the years results up to FL/FA/GA status... and some of those years I'm not convinced are substantial enough to warrant GA status.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

2008 World Series of Poker Europe results is now an FL

While the page doesn't yet indicate it, this article just passed to FL.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

World Series of Poker Europe

Currently at GAC---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Damn that was fast. It seems kind of short, though. I'll see if I can dig more stuff up... Gary King (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's my big concern as well... I would really like to have it about 50% larger than it currently is, but I'm not sure of what to add. I also figure that we can add it now to the GAC list because it takes about a month (or more) before somebody reviews articles there. That is definitely an area with an extended backlog.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Can this be used as a source? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Depending on what we are citing. It is a news release, thus does have POV concerns, but it is reliable. Official results are definitely reliable.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2007 World Series of Poker Europe results/archive1

The 2007 WSOPE results are now at FLC.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

After getting this to be an FT

My goal is to create an FT of WSOP in the 2000's. I don't think we can get the WSOP to FT, too many early events that weren't well documented, but I suspect that we could do the 80's, 90's, and 2000's. I'll be working backwards towards that objective if anybody wants to help out.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you draw up a template with {{Featured topic box}} so I know exactly which articles you plan on including together? Gary King (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Older tournaments

I was just wondering why Binion's "Hall of Fame" Tournaments are not recorded. It was the second major tournament of the year in its day. Third would be the "Four Queens Classic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyburd (talk • contribs) 19:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There isn't nearly as much info on these events, but if reliable sources can be found they certainly could have articles. Somebody just has to do the work. 2005 (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Youngest female at final table

Does anyone know whose record Vanessa Rousso broke for the youngest female at a final table or if the record still stands?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I see Annette Obrestad has won a WSOP Europe bracelet. What about the records for the Vegas WSOP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if that data is anywhere for the WSOP, but Vanessa Selbst at least is younger (and Rousso has not made a final table at the WSOP... her 8th came in a 6-handed event). A final table in general, absolutely no way of knowing that. 2005 (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What event are the following referencing for her record:

P.S. is it possible that at a short-handed event they don't let tables go below 4 and combine to a final table at eight? I have seen the main event sometimes consolidates tables at 10, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, could they be referring to http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/event.php?a=r&n=16940 ?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The poker listings item is almost definitely referencing the event cited by the HendonMob, it explicitly states a circuit event, which is different than a true WSOP event. As for the PokerStars reference, I would argue that in this particular case, it is not a reliable source. While I would accept a poker site's news articles as reliable, I would not accept their bio's of their spokespeople/stars as reliable. As it is a short handed event, short handed is generally defined as 6 players.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the error on the Pokerstars page is just a writer missing that it was a 6-handed event, not a 9-handed one. Note here that the final table was six people, and Vanessa eliminated the night before. Also here and here, the final seven played at one table, vanessa did not. But all that is even irrelevant since Vanessa Selbst came in 7th three weeks before Rousso's day, and Selbst is 15 months younger than Rousso. 2005 (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically Annette Obrestadt is the youngest female ever to make it to the final table... heck she probably is the youngest person to ever make a final table---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

These records get harder and harder to break every year :( Gary King (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Annette's record is probably one that won't be broken anytime soon. In order for it to be broken, you have to have an 18 year old competing at the WSOPE who wins a bracelet. As there are currently only 4 events, per year there aren't many opportunities for that to happen.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Rousso's last vicotory

Why was Rousso's winnings in last weekend's tournament reduced from 720K euro to 570K euro at http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=43135?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's converted from euros to dollars. Gary King (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the explanation is that although first prize was 720K, there was a chip chop.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

2007 WSOP results

I am currently working on getting the 2007 WSOP results up to code for an FLC.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yuval Bronshtein

Before I send this to AFD, I wanted to get other input from the project.75.53.106.91 (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Note---this was me---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP was me, but I went ahead and nominated Yuval for deletion.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Dario Alioto

Why isn't his bracelet count showin?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to fill in wsop main event best finish rank as well; I assume it's #1. Gary King (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No, he never made it to the money in the Main Event. He won a bracelet, but not in the main event.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, I was thinking that field was for rank in any event at the WSOP (I wasn't thinking straight). Gary King (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay fixed. This is unnecessary now. Gary King (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

2007 WSOP results

2007 WSOP results is now at FLC.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Poker Tournament Template

I had to make a minor change to the poker tournament template. For those years where we have a detailed list of out comes, I have added an "R" for "R"esults. This is because according to the MOS navboxes should not be included on articles unless they include a link to said article.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Just say "results" instead of making it a short link and require a description to explain what they mean. Gary King (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Numerous broken links to cardplayer.com website

I'd like to point out that it looks like cardplayer.com recently changed their website, resulting in numerous links being broken. These need to be systematically checked. Gnarinn (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you come across one and cannot find a replacement URL, then please use an archived version from http://www.archive.org/ Gary King (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Stefan Rapp Afd discussion

Player article nominated for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Rapp. 2005 (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Blunkett

I have proposed deletion of the article Blunkett (poker) . If any of you feel the article has value, now's your chance to save it. PhGustaf (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

When an article uses a persons name who happens to be blind as a "slang term" for blinds, then that is a BLP/G10 violation as far as I am concerned---especially when such use is unsourced. Thus, I speedy deleted the article.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Good. 2005 (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I only found the page in the first place because the guy added "Blunkett" to Glossary of poker terms and I looked up the page after taking out the addition. It all worked out fine. PhGustaf (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Relative Prestige

Well, Stefan Rapp was just deleted. During the discussion a person cited his bio on PokerPages where it listed Rapp as being ranked 993. I pointed out how hee was ranked 993, and the person who was arguing for keeping him said that it wouldn't matter if he was ranked 50th, I would have supported deletion. So I looked it up, and yeah, the guy ranked 50th really isn't that notable. BUT it did provide me with some insight on how to evaluate the relative prestige of an event. Stefan Rapp won first place in the CAPT Velden. A tournament I'd never heard of. His first place finish garnered him about 300 points for the PokerPlayer rankings. The guy in 50th place, won a WSOP Circuit event. That Circuit event, which is still not overly notable, garnered him almost 3200 points! The guy in second place as of right now is another one hit wonder. He was a WPT event, that WPT event garnered him almost 15,000 points. In other words, winning the CAPT has about 1/50th the prestige as winning the WPT event and 1/11th the value of a WSOP Circuit Event. If the need ever arises, we can look up the relative value of the different tournaments via [3], there might be an easier way to do so, but this works.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Those may be interesting comparisons, but it is really not on the relevant point. Does the person have significant coverage from at least two reliable/independant sources, and does that coverage relate to more than just a single event? A person with far less accomplishments will sometimes easily meet the criteria for inclusion. 2005 (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WSOP bracelet winner at DRV

Jonathan Kotula a 2008 WSOP bracelet winner is currently at DRV.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with move

I disagree with the moving of the completed tasks to a subpage, with a template on the main page. It is counter productive to the purpose of having the list. Part of the reason behind adding a "compelted" task is to announce it to the rest of the wikiproject so that they can take a look at it and help it out. By having it on a sub page, it requires that people add another page to their watch list. If they don't realize they have to do this, then they may never know that new articles have been added.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the change. Adding a needless extra page to watchlists is unhelpful, especially since a "recent" listing by its nature will be very few entries. 2005 (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Over the next few months there might be more as we are now in WSOP season---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

info boxes

Our info boxes need to be updated, if there is somebody who feels comfortable with them please add and "as of" field so that we know what date the WSOP/WPT data is "as of". This will be very helpful as we go through these people updating their records at the end of the years (or whenever somebody does so.)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, use last updated. Gary King (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:1E and Poker

I added a little piece to our essay on notability related to WP:1E, explicitly why WP:1E is a bad idea for Poker Players who have won WPT/EPT/Poker Hall of Fame, etc. Feel free to comment, edit, respond; or if you don't like it, we can talk about it.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Need help

The WSOPE is almost ready to be submitted to to become a featured topic (the WSOPE article was reviewed for GA and needs a just few tweaks), my next idea for feature topic is WSOP Closed Events (or something along those lines). It would include the list of winners for the Ladies Championship, the Seniors Championship, and the Casino Employee Championship. I need some help with List of World Series of Poker Casino Employee Champions. What I need are some of the names of poker pros/bracelet winners who used to be Casino Employees. I know Scotty Nguyen was one, and I know there are others, but I can't think of who they are. Any suggestions? I want to add a paragraph about poker pros who got their start working at the Casino's.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

List of poker hands

List of poker hands has been tagged for needing citations. If anyone could add some, that would be great. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

WSOPE at FTC

The WSOPE has been submitted as a featured topic.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up, per comments at the FT, we need to rename the 2007 World Series of Poker Europe results and 2008 World Series of Poker Europe results...basically need to get rid of "results". Unlike the WSOP articles where we have an article and a results page, here we only have one, and the results is unnecessary. I've asked the people at the FL how to make the change as I know that sometimes changing featured content can cause problems.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

To do list

I went ahead and killed about half of the to do list... and added some new items as to what I am actually hoping to accomplish. Many of the items on that to do list were over 2 years old with no movement. If you don't intend to work on it, don't add it (of course Poker and the WSOP should always be on there for a goal to reach FA status.)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Poker Hall of Fame Needs a review

If anybody could give Poker Hall of Fame a look over, that would be great. I'm almost ready to send it to FLC. The next subject that I'm going to tackle is the Superbowl of Poker.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Now at FLC. also, the Super Bowl of Poker is under construction at User:I'm Spartacus!/SuperBowl---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Now at Super Bowl of Poker---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The article looks pretty good to me. One thing, the line "Currently, the Poker Hall of Fame is virtual in nature." needs to be clarified/written in language that everyone can understand. It threw me when I read it, especially since it was tacked on to the end of a historical summary of casino ownership of the HOF. I tried to fix it but kept getting the fizzing Beavis and Butthead light bulb. Hazir (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

World Series of Poker bracelet GAR notice

World Series of Poker bracelet has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Issues addressed---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

SBOP

Well, I've started creating the lists of the SBOP winners. The more I research this event, the more I realize how big of a gap we have here at WP. The SBOP was the second biggest tournament of it's day... and was probably the second biggest tournament until the WPT came about. For that reason, I also added SBOP to the criteria for poker notability.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Super Bowl of Poker

Ok, I need to take a break, but I've created the ones that are not in red

If somebody could go through them and identify wikilinks for players that have articles, that would be great. Also, the talk pages need the wikiproject tag and the article needs the major tournaments template. The 1980 SBOP needs to be investigated as the Hendon Mob didn't have any information about it!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Note, some of these need to be expanded, namely information about the events on a year to year basis. I am also going to try to get this in as a 14 item DYK! Any thoughts or advice on how to word this DYK would be appreciated!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Poker Hall of Fame

Ok, I know that about a year and a half ago, there was a CSD that nobody told the project about related to this category, and the C:PHF was deleted. I, however, think the category is worth having and should be recreated--with the caveat that we don't add it to Wild Bill or Hoyle. The award is meaningful within the poker realm but I can see the protectors of those two pages getting upset.

I don't think we have to worry about the category being redeleted per G4 for several reasons. 1) The Poker Hall of Fame article is much bigger and will hopefully be a FL soon. When the category was deleted, the article was garbage. 2) The prestige of the award has gone up, this is in part because of the new inductees, but also because of the maretting campaign used by Harrah's. 3) I think enough time has passed that even if it were nominated, it deserves a chance at CSD. Do you guys agree?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

wsope

The WSOPE is now a featured topic!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What are some reliable poker sources?

What are some reliable poker sources, particularly websites? Do we have a list of reliable poker sources for this WikiProject already, and if not, then could we please create one? There are tons of poker news websites but of course I'd like to only use the reliable ones, and it'd help if we had a compiled list of which ones are reliable, and which are not, so that we end up with something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Gary King (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about making this exact same proposal. If you take a look at the Poker Hall of Fame FLC I had to defend a number of the sources used---which could serve as the foundation for creating such a list.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's the exact FLC I was just looking at when determining whether I could use some sources for a new article I'm working on. Poker News and Pokerlistings are two websites that I find particularly useful for poker content. Gary King (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the article on?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Moneymaker Effect :) I think the effect is a pretty notable one; there are certainly plenty of sources that refer to it. There isn't really a single article out there that defines it too well, though, so hopefully we can make this article here as comprehensive as possible. Regarding the effect, there are a few things that I "know" about it, but can't find reliable sources for them; such as, the fact that the number of entrants doubled or tripled in 2004 and 2005, etc. There are some articles that I'd like to use but I don't know if they are reliable: Poker News and Poker Pages. Gary King (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The other issue is the rise of the WPT at the same time. The introduction of the Hole Cam at the WPT helped people see what the game was all about. Could we have had a WPT with the success it had without MoneyMaker? Probably not, but the rise in participation at the WSOP stems in part to the WPT.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a list. The Video games one is a distater so we shouldn't repeat that mistake of having COI editors doing anoying COI things. Additionally, there are innumerable expert/player websites, and official sites (like for the EPT or WPT or WSOP) so any list would have 500 or more entries. For strictly "news" (as opposed to gameplay/strategy/rules/history/...), Cardplayer and Bluff are paper magazines with decent websites, so there is no problem there, and Poker News easily meets the reliable source criteria if only because of the WSOP association, but there are many other websites that are reliable for niche information (like an Austrian poker tournament) but would not be for something well off its topic -- for instance I'd of course trust the EPT site for EPT news, but not for what Doyle Brunson did in 1964. So, rather than make a list of hundreds of websites, the status quo works fine. In all the poker articles, there are no more than a handful of mediocre or worse references. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 2005 (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, but that's in part because I'm working to get articles to the Featured Status. One of the questions that is being raised more and more is does it use a reliable source. I don't think we need to include every page, but the main ones that are likely to be common sources, then I would say yes. I think it would be nice to have a list of the 10 or 20 sites that we are most likely to use with proof that they are reliable. The other pages can be defended on a case by case basis, but it would be nice to be able to say, Poker Listings is reliable because of X, Y, and Z. The HendonMob (which I've been challenged on several times) is reliable because of X Y and Z. Again, by having the main sites pre-vetted, when we do get questioned, we can say, "we've been there and here is what we found and concluded." As for "many other websites" the standards are rising and the expectations are rising. PokerBabes just doesn't cut it anymore.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

See there are two problems in a nutshell. Featured status is irrelevant, and personally of no importance to me. We are working to make great encyclopedic articles, not featured ones. That's a secondary, and trivial thing that happens next. I couldn't care less if someone questions you on the hendon Mob in a feature discussion. If people clueless about the subject show thir cluelessness, it is irrelevant to the quality of the article. Secondly, saying a top expert site "doesn't cut it anymore" is to completely miss the point of notability guidelines. Articles written by experts, with their expert status noted by the most reliable sources in existence like The Times of London, the New York Times, The associated press, and also niche sites like Cardplayer and Pokernews are quite clearly appropriate sources for poker gameplay/strategy/rules/history/ topics. In fact expert sites trump random news sites for gameplay/strategy/rules/history/. For "news" though, it is a different issue. General news sites like cardplayer, and event sites like the WSOP win for stats and stuff like that. The thing to cut out is anonymous sites with articles that are written anonymously, but that is a general principle, not something that lends itself to a list. Once again, there is no problem here so "fixing" it will do nothing but cause problems, especially since poker articles fall into two very, very different general groups... game articles and news/event/bio articles. These two different types of articles call for different types of sourcing. 2005 (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

From the FLC:

As for poker news: Should you have questions about PokerNews.com, you should read this Bluff Magazine] article wherein PokerNews entered into an agreement with the WSOP to provide ‘play by play’ updates and chip counts for publication on the worldseriesofpoker.com website, as well as on PokerNews.com. Bluff Magazine also writes, that PokerNews has garnered a reputations for providing what many in the industry consider the best poker tournament coverage on the web. Part of agreement for the WSOP was that they translate in "near real time" the coverage into the 23 languages used by PokerNews.com.
As for Poker Pages: Most magazines/companies have guidelines on how to be published. I mean, you can write articles for written articles for professional journals or Newspapers or whatnot. Having a criteria for submitting articles does not disqualify a source. One other thing to note on the page, There is no set rate of payment for articles. Payment will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Payment will be issued via check only, without exception, at the end of the month in which an article was published. They are not asking for people to write for free ala a wiki, they are looking to publish reviewed content. The articles have to pass the mustard. Furthermore, the fact that they don't offer a set rate is a sign of a more credible magazine. I know some pages will pay X dollars per article and those are generally a little more dubious in nature.

I would consider both of them to be RS's unless dealing with one of their forum pages.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

On Importance

When I've been giving articles ratings for importance, I've been using the following as a basic guideline:

High --- The subject is such that not having it would be a glaring omission for wikipedia. This would include major tournaments, major poker stars (including but not limited to WSOP Main Event winners and Poker Hall of Famers), and other major subjects of the project.

Medium---The subject is such that one could reasonably expect to be able to find the topic on Wikipedia. While the omission might be noted, it would not be as glaring. This would include second tier poker players, poker magazines, moderately successful events, the results pages to major tournaments, etc.

Low---The subject is such that if it wasn't covered by Wikipedia, it might even be noticed. This would include one shot wonders (that 1994 WSOP bracelet winner that never did anything again), poker terms (ala the Moneymaker Effect), etc

How does that sound for a general guideline? I know, it might create some differences as far as some players are concerned, while I think most would agree that Tony G would be medium, is the same true for Cindy Violette?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Dominant Factor Test

I'm working on a new article on Dominant Factor Test. This is the test used by most jurisdictions to determine whether or not poker is a game of skill or luck.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Makes for interesting reading. What about some coverage of the flip-side? Check this out for example. Hazir (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It might get mentioned as a footnote, I do want to include contrary cases/history, but the Dominant Factor Test is a piece of American juris prudence, not UK. The article is in development and hopefully will be done in a day or two.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act

the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act is being written. Feel free to come by and help out.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

November Nine, 2009 version

Last year one poker web company made articles for all the November Nine as a way to spam their website and only their website in each article. None of these players at the time genuinely met the WP:BIO guidelines to have an article as all except one were famous/notable for only this one event. The spam got removed but we ended up with basically nine virtual duplicate articles. So, this year I think we need to for sure not let all the spammers try to use new articles to suit their own purposes, but I propose we also redirect all the players (at least initially) who currently do not have articles to a #November_Nine section of 2009 World Series of Poker. This way we both prevent spam, and not violate WP:BLP1E which is what deal with when "an individual is significant for their role in a single event". We also would reference the identities of the Nine with a single link from the official site so there aren't any disputes about sourcing. Of course if someone like Phil Ivey already has an article the info would be included in his existing article. How does that sound? 2005 (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It sounds simple, practical, and effective. PhGustaf (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

that's fine by me, although I suspect that we could go ahead and create a new article for most of the November 9. By the time November rolls around, each of the Novemebr 9 will have enough indivdually coverage to warrant an article---which is the exact excitement that the WSOP is seeking to create via the November 9 concept. Personally, I don't feel that WP:BLP1E works well with poker players. If I look up Dave Alizadeth I probably already know that he won a single WSOP bracelet in 2000, I want to know if he has done anything else. If the article merely links back to the event, that doesn't tell me anything. Does it link back because we haven't created an article, or does it link back because he didn't do anything else? By having an article, it becomes quite clear that Dave had his 15 minutes of fame and driften into lala land.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the BLP1E issue with poker articles is even more complicated because we don't have an article about Dave Alizadeth's specific event. BLP1E suggests linking to an article, but we don't break down WSOPs by individual event, for good reason. The winner is notable, the specific event, less so. In the case of the November 9 though, the even is more notable, we have coverage of it (though it focuses more on celebrities and champion elimination than it probably should). So winners of one event get coverage and are generally more notable than their event, but clearly these nine people are all not more notable than the WSOP. Also, in retrospect, besides Eastgate only perhaps one or two of last years November Nine would merit making an article today. They contributed to one event, but after fifteent months have not risen to notability themselves. Anyway, I think it would be good to start with a section and redirect the names, and then if anyone actually does merit a unique individual article, fine. What was done last year needs to be avoided though, where the same basic paragraph was used for nine articles, with the names just substituted. I'll make a November Nine section now. 2005 (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Done... 2009_World_Series_of_Poker#November_Nine. 2005 (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Now one editor has added articles without any references of notability for any of the players, other than to say they made the final table and list a link to the Hendon Mob and their previous non-notable finishes. We've discussed this issue before. The notability essay/guideline for the project specifically does not include making a final table as a criteria. None of the articles made establishes notability beyond one event. So I'm going to redirect the articles one more time per the above discussion and BLP1E, and if anyone wants to make a case otherwise they can do so here. 2005 (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding... I think the use of the term "November Nine" in the 2009 WSOP ME section is unencylopedic. I recommend changing it to something along the lines of "Delayed Final Table" and the descriptive text to, "As in 2008, in an effort to build public excitement, the final nine players will return on November 7 to complete play of the event. These players are:". Hazir (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it unencyclopedic? I don't really mind one way or the other, but I'd like to note that I don't think the phrase "November Nine" is used in any official capacity by the WSOP; I think it's just used by ESPN, who uses it to their advantage to more easily promote the event since they are the ones that broadcast it. Gary King (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Meet your November Nine---WSOP website---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC) And used officially here.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Delayed..." or just "Final table" could be simple enough. The words "November Nine" could be used in the paragraph if explained that that is what ESPN calls them. I don't really have an opinion though, other than to make the section link something easy to write/remember and see all links point to the right thing. 2005 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not just ESPN calling them that, but I went ahead and wrote an article on the November Nine.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is the way to go. Now for at least the next four or five years we can link the one-event folks to this article where both their single event and the concept of the single event are explained. 2005 (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, plus, I think people are now going to be more interested in who made the November Nine---particularly if this becomes the norm which is what it looks like.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick list of organizations using the term: ESPN, WSOP, Bluff Magazine, Cardplayer Magazine, Poker Pages, Pokerlistings, PokerStars, FullTiltPoker, Poker News Daily, USA Today, Las Vegas Sun, PocketFives, PokerNews, UltimateBet, Betfair, Fox News, hendonmob, World Series of Poker-UK, Bodog Poker, and many more.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ballonman, your article is great - well done! One suggestion: I think that it should be specifically stated somewhere that the term "Novemeber Nine" was coined by Harrah's. Hazir (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? I couldn't find the origins of the term.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

pokerplayermagazine.co.uk is blacklisted?

Why is the website blacklisted? Isn't it the official website for the British Poker Player magazine, a legitimate magazine? Gary King (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why. The publisher is Dennis Publishing, and they are a legit publisher. (EG their magazine include the like of Maxim and not the National Enquirer.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Besides that, they also publish a ton of respectable technology magazines, too. I have made a request to unblacklist it at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals. Gary King (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

All Dennis Publishing magazines were blacklisted. They have a long history of spamming the Wikipedia with links from a lot of their magazines, including poker ones. This magazine was included with a larger ban. 22:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Poker editor with an agenda

I noticed the edits of [this] author today, who is rather obviously being commissioned to promote Betfair through Wikipedia. The author has managed to sneak well disguised press release type spam into a number of popular poker articles, including this entry in Phil Ivey's article:

"In July 2009, it was announced that Ivey had been selected to represent The Americas in the inaugural Caesars Cup, to take place on September 25, 2009, as part of the Betfair sponsored World Series of Poker Europe. Dubbed the Ryder Cup of poker, the Caesars Cup will see 8 top European players pitted against 8 of their American counterparts in a variety of heads-up and team-based tournaments. Ivey was the first person picked to join the American team by its captain Daniel Negreanu."

Does someone have any advice on the best course of action going forward? Hazir (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

He/she has certainly gone way over the top with dropping betfair anywhere it comes up. Reverting some of the contributions seems the right way to go, particularly the ones about an upcoming event that as of this second hasn't demonstrated notability. A note on the editor's talk page enocuraging a wider range of editing interests beyond just Betfair, as well as a link to WP:COI would seem a good idea too. 2005 (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

also a note on ANI would not be out the question, get some eyes watching him.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what an ANI is, where can I read about it? Hazir (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Needing Intervention or something like that... it'll get some other non-poker related admins to watch the page.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for the advice. I left a note on the author's talk page and started checking through his/her edits from oldest to newest. I can see this is going to be tricky, this is intelligent spam! The very first article is Peter Jepsen. There's an individual section concerned with his "Betfair Sponsorship", which discusses a publicity stunt orchestrated by Betfair and includes a Youtube video, which was - surprise - created by Betfair. I would delete this entire section, leaving only a note that Jepsen he is a Betfair Pro (a quick search reveals he is also sponsored by Ladbrokes, and Fulltilt but this was omitted). Hazir (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have an opinion on what to do with the Caesars Cup? Hazir (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards debating it or writing another article... right now, it is not CSD eligible, it makes a claim to significance in that it is associated with the WSOP. BUT it is not an individually notable enough of a tournament. The article I'm thinking about writing would be something like "Non Bracelet Events at the WSOP". It would include the Tournament of Champions, Ante Up for Africa, Caesar's Cup, and there are probably a few others that I am blanking on right now. But I'm not even convinced that the Caesar's Cup is really part of the WSOPE yet.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Created article on Non-bracelet events at the WSOP if I missed any let me know.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesars Cup---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, I removed the Caesar's Cup PR from the World Series of Poker Europe article but left the One Million Dollar Free Betfair stuff alone as I did not know what to make of it. Hazir (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Million Dollar Free tournament is being advertised by Harrah's. I included it on the non-bracelet events at the wsop.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of the additions were perfectly fine, like simply stating he is a Team Betfair member is fine to add, but the little item of knocking over the card stack is unimportant mega-trivia and literally a publicity stunt. (Added... removing the laundry list of other names of sponsored players from an individual player's article is a good example of non-relevant trivia that it is good to remove as Hazir did.) While there are single purpose editors around (all the Bodog articles for example), as long as they just add sensible facts then it creates no problem, but when they try to mention the people/entity they are trying to promote in every possible place, that is just over the top. 2005 (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I've only just checked out this page and am shocked to see that my contributions generated this level of discussion. I can assure you I am not some 'intelligent spammer' as has been suggested on these pages. I was merely trying to keep the Betfair related pages up-to-date and accurate. I am clearly not as familiar with Wikipedia policy as all of you and am very happy to take on board what you have said and accept the changes you have been making to my contributions. Having said this, I am baffled by the decision to remove the Caesars Cup section from the WSOPE page but to leave in the section on the Free Million Dollar Game. Both are listed as events on the 2009 WSOPE on Harrah's page [4]. Other changes also seem extremely strange. Someone has seen fit to remove the EU flag from the Europe Team because not all countries are in the EU, yet they have left the USA flag representing Team Americas, despite the fact that its captain is Canadian (thus leaving the page looking incomplete and quite ridiculous). The EU flag is widely accepted as the flag representing Europe and is used on similar pages such as the Ryder Cup. I am more than happy to adhere to all Wikipedia policies but the manner in which my contributions are being picked apart is really disappointing.--Jtrentonjtrenton (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jtrenton - you might have some valid points but please spare us the 'shock' and 'disappointment' in your spam being picked apart. The Ceasar's Cup is still mentioned in the World Series of Poker Europe article but the details are now shown in the Non-bracelet events at the WSOP article. This has created an anomaly as the One Million Dollar Free Betfair is still described in (some) detail on both articles. Hazir (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well thank you Hazir for at least acknowledging that I have made valid points, even if no one seems willing to respond to them. I completely respect your desire to remove anything that violates Wikipedia policy but stop deleting perfectly good contributions simply because you feel that I previously mentioned Betfair too often. As I have said before, I am not trying to cleverly disguise "spam" as you suggest, and I have always been very open about my aims. Since you contacted me, I have not added anything that violates Wikipedia policy, nor will I in the future. I ask simply that my future contributions are judged on their merits and not by your dislike for some of my previous contributions. --Jtrentonjtrenton (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Autoarchive

Any objection to auto archiving this talk page? I'm thinking yearly archives and moving discussions after they have been unedited for 30 days. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A look at style: Games, tournaments, limits, etc.

There are many ways to write game names, especially the one that starts with the word "Texas". Texas hold'em, Texas hold 'em, Texas holdem, Texas Hold'em, Texas Hold 'em, Texas Holdem. The "wikipedia choice" is Texas hold 'em. In terms of the rest of the world though, hardly anyone types it that way, especially in lists of tournament events. I think it is more important that we be consistent (especially within articles) than it is to choose between the choices, but I think we need to first catch up with the rest of the world, and with the practices of most editors and... change the Texas hold 'em article name and amend the [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(poker-related_articles)#Names_of_games|poker article style guidelines] to better reflect the world and the preferences of most editors. The WSOP uses: "Texas Hold'em", capitalizes all words in game titles "Seven Card Stud" and hyphenates betting limits like "No-Limit" or "Shootout". I really don't see a good argument for us doing it differently than them, but of course this change would effect a lot of articles, so I think if we change anything it should reflect a pretty strong consensus.

So to summarize, I suggest we follow the Worldseriesofpoker.com lead...

1) get rid of the hold 'em space;
2) capitalize all words in a game name or betting structure;
3) hyphenate betting structures like No-Limit and game types like short-handed or six-handed.
4)... The one thing we can't follow the WSOP site on is "High-Low" variations since they use many different ways. 2005 (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I've kind of been doing that with the FL's that I've been submitting as is. But even so, I suspect that there is some inconsistency even there.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to get some more comments on this, pro or con, since our article structures are very different than the actual practices of editors. 2005 (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Subproject of WikiProject Gambling

Any objection to making this a sub project of the Gambling project in the templates? I don't believe that there is any article that is tagged with for the Poker project that is not, or should not be, tagged for the gambling project. Since I see no reason why the quality assessment would be different for the two projects, one big gain is that we would only need to do the quality assessment only once. The project importance would be of course be two parameters. Changing would mean a one time replacement of the Poker template, or if an article is already tagged with both, adding a few parameters to the {{WikiProject Gambling}} template. This is a simple task that would take a few minutes. As the templates were updated, your backlog of articles without a quality assessment should drop significantly, possibility to none. Don't know how active things are here, but if I don't hear any objections, I'll make the change. Since it does not appear that the project is doing much with assessments right now, I don't see this as a change that has much visual impact here. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the template and an example is here. In doing the update, I noticed that both projects are using the same image. I'll look for something better for one of the these, but if anyone has a suggestion, fell free to help out. If I don't hear any objections, I'll start switching articles to using the combined assessment template. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Other than the fact that poker isn't gambling ;-) ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the article opens with Poker is a family of card games that share betting rules, betting is one of the wager types in gambling. Right? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Since no one else has chimed in, I'm going to start tagging the articles with a single template. Clearly all of the individuals and tournaments are based on gambling so if we include a few extra ones in gambling I don't see that as a problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Strategy article overemphasises FTOP

I was surprised to see that the strategy article is headed by references to the so called fundamental theorem of poker. The FTOP defines a mistake as any action which differs from that which would be taken if you could see your opponent's hole cards, and then says that those are often not mistakes at all, because you have to act according to the limited information available when you are playing poker. If the so-called mistakes are not mistakes, and the theorem is not a theorem, why is it given such prominence in an introductory article, or even mentioned at all? If the FTOP says anything, it is no more than "don't show your opponent your hole cards", or "don't be too predictable" or, well, you can insert just about any poker bromide you can think of. So it can be associated with all kinds of discussions of poker strategy without contributing anything concrete. The equivalent "theorem" in tennis might be "get the ball back over the net and into the court one more time than your opponent", that is, it says everything, but gives no precise course of action in any particular situation. To give it prime position in a poker primer seems odd to me. Doyle's "small connectors" theory - ie, a mixed strategy for NL play, involving the play of small cards when the situation is right - would seem a much more practical and relevent introduction to understanding the modern game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakeyourbooty (talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what you are dissatisfied with. The FTOP addresses that since we can't see the cards there is limited information, not perfect information. It is a fundamental place to start. there could be other ways to write such an article, but the FTOP in a nutshell explains the goal and dilmena of poker, which that there is a mathematically correct answer for head up play, but we don't know it for sure because we have limited information. Doyle's POV on the other hand is not the point of such and article. This is an article about strategy, not tactics. 2005 (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Summing up poker strategy in a few words is not easy, not least because very different strategies can be profitable, even at the same table. Even in a two-way situation there is no clear mathematical solution, unless psychological factors such as fear, pride and courage can be accurately quantified. The FTOP is, IMO, far from being a clear statement of what poker strategy is about: it takes 95 words to say very little, four times. With due respect to DS for the excellent work done in explaining many other things about poker, I question whether the statement "every time you play your hand as if you could see your opponent's cards, you gain", adds anything to the sum of human knowledge. Although Russ Hamilton sure took it to heart :O

How about this idea: from the example given in the main FTOP article it seems that the FTOP is, or can be taken as, a quirky restatement of some ideas from game theory. Everyone knows you have to be deceptive in poker - which is all the FTOP is saying -and the mathematics of game theory can provide some quantitative tools for the situation. Why not substitute the universally accepted term, that is, game theory, for FTOP in the article? After all, most poker theorists incorporate game theory into their work, without rebranding it, so why should one writer's jargon be preferred to the original and correct term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakeyourbooty (talk • contribs) 07:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

World Series of Poker Casino Employee Championship

User:Balloonman nominated this article at GAN a while ago. I undertook the privilege to review it recently. It turns out that Balloonman has decided to retire so he can not fix the remaining concerns. I would hate to fail an article with very very few problems remaining. So if anyone here could take Balloonman's place that would be fantastic?--WillC 17:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

World Series of Poker Europe

The people who want to highlight Betfair's million dollar tournament are pushing to include a section on the tournament and the Caesar's Cup on this page. I do not see those two events meriting more than a mention and a link to the non-bracelt events at the WSOP article. We don't include Ante Up for Africa or the Champions Event in their own sections on the WSOP main page---and both of those events are independently more notable than the Betfair publicity stunts.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

One sentence like it is now makes the most sense. After the event, perhaps more detail can be put in the 2009 article (but not the main one). 2005 (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Traffic reports

I have requested that a list of traffic per article be generated. This list could be used to identify the popular articles and to maybe concentrate improvement work on those articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Cardplayer.com

Hi all. I just noticed that 4 of 5 references in the Tom Dwan article from Cardplayer.com are now dead links. It appears this site is routinely deleting old articles from their server. This is just a heads up - ahen given a choice, it's probably best to use other sites. Hazir (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, they changed their URL format a few months ago. Just add the archive URL to the citation template. Gary King (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Pot odds edit

Just thought I would bring [this] edit to the attention of authors who have a better understanding of pot odds than I do! This version confuses the hell out of me - but maybe that's just me. Hazir (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Poker to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 06:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal biographical info: where to draw the line?

I was having a read of the Ylon Schwartz article today and some of the biographical stuff actually made me feel uncomfortable. Do we really need to know that Ylon's father walked out on him as a toddler and that later attempts at making contact were rejected by Ylon? And that his father remarried and now lives in Mexico! I am interested in your thoughts before making any edits. I think it's highly off-topic material for an encyclopedic entry on a poker player. Regards Hazir (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's sourced to something reliable per WP:BLP then it should be okay. This information in particular is sourced to the New York Times. I don't have a problem reading it in the article; it's not anything particularly embarrassing, etc., and Schwartz himself admitted this to the newspaper. Gary King (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Article importance criteria

When looking at large number of articles on players, I think it would be good to have some criteria to guide assessments on the importance scale. What really qualifies a player as a top importance article? Clearing winning a tournament probably rates as low since there are so many. Likewise winning a WSOP bracelet is also not a top importance article. However is wining 5 bracelets a top importance article? Can someone propose some guidance here? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll also add that all of the people articles have received an assessment. It would be good if someone could review these to make sure that I got these correct. In particular those rated as start class may well include some B or C class articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I was looking for the Steven Begleiter article for some information about him. I had to get it from the history of his page. In his case, I think his own article may be warranted -- at least temporarily. Because he was such a high-ranking employee of Bear Stearns, plus being a member of the November Nine, it at least makes him notable at the moment. Of course, anyone who wins the WSOP is notable enough to merit a page. Vir4030 (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You should write his article in a sandbox and then we can take a look. Also, no one is "notable at the moment"; once a person is considered notable, then that status is basically considered permanent (unless of course, they go to AfD or something). Gary King (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

While I do not believe that making it to the final table of the Main Event used to make a person notable, I think the case exists that it is so now. I mean, which poker magazine has not interviewed every single one of the the November Nine? Matt Dean, a member of the 2004 Main Event Final table, hosts a poker based radio program on ESPN in Houston. He has had each of the November Nine on his radio program. The November Nine, due to the new format, IMO, have become notable enough to warrant articles.

As for guidance as to how to rate players? I wish I could give you firm hard rules, but I can't. My thought boils down to what the reader would think if they looked for an article and it didn't exist. If the player was one that the typical reader woul think less of Wikipedia, then that player is of high importance. (Doyle Brunson, Phil Ivey, Phil Helmuth, Phil Gordon {due more to Celebrity Poker Showdown}, Daniel Negraneau would fall into that category.) If the person would be surprised that a player didn't have their own article, but not quite dismayed, then the person would be Mid-Class. (EG Greenstein, Schulman, Violette, Tiffany Michelle, etc.) If the person isn't really surprised that an article doesn't exist, then that is low importance. (The one time winner of a $1,000 WSOP Bracelet, the WPT winner, an online player who has garnered enough of a reputation to warrant an article). Does this mean there is subjectivity? Yes. Is Annie Duke high importance or mid importance? Depends on your view of Annie. There are no hard firm rules.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There is some pretty clear guidance on this in WP:BIO and WP:BIO1E. Fame from one event: "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." As the November Nine gain fame, they can justify an article by independant coverage in reliable sources about them and not about the single event. If someone is a high ranking employee of Bear Stearns, that doesn't mean anything at all unless there is independant coverage aout him in reliable sources about him being a Bear Stearns employee. Two articles in reliable sources is not a high bar. Once someone meets it, great. But if there is an article where the person is basically asked "what is it like to be in the November Nine?" then that is a potential reference about the event, and not good support for an individual article. Bottom line, I'd say we don't make ant articles until after the event is over since it is only a few days from now. 2005 (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am strongly against automatically creating articles for all members of the November Nine. We'll end up with loads of silly articles like the Douglas Kim one. Hazir (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Huge difference between Douglas Kim and member of the November Nine. The members of the November Nine have been interviewed and chronicled for months. Every poker site and magazine interviewed them and many carried bios of eaech of them as did radio programs and tv shows talking about poker. For 4 months, each of them (especially moon and begleiter) were mini celebrities. BLP1E doesn't really apply because the coverage exists for each of them. Kim while a final tablist, was not a november niner. His flame burnt out almost as soon as he appeared on the WSOP broadcast.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 09:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I would put Douglas Kim's WSOP ME final table appearance on par with any of the November Niners from the past two years, simply because 2006's event had such an enormous prize-pool and arguably represented poker's peak in popularity. In any case, what about Darus Suharto and Craig Marquis, members of last year's November Nine? It's a bit of stretch to have an article for these guys. Hazir (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Grinding

Is the concept/phenomenon of 'grinding' worthy of a stand alone article or is this just another example of poker jargon that should be avoided when writing poker articles? Hazir (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Is grinding in the context of video gaming [related]? Hazir (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it's very similar; the main difference is that grinding in online poker is for money instead of virtual goods. Gary King (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me more as a glossary entry. Of the top of my head it is common jargon rather than slang for something else, but it doesn't strike me as full-blooded enough to merit a full article. 2005 (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Just dropped by

Here just to say hello and to apologize for leaving abruptly without saying good bye, I got burnt out with many things in Wikipedia but i should had told you i was just going to stop, I understand if you all are angry i guess the more time that went by the harder it became to say anything but i know i should had. hope everything is going well for everyone here I've see a lot of nice work done, maybe the wiki bug will bite me again someday.

if you wish to delete this message as irrelevant then that's fine. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 05:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Just saw the message. I hope you can recharge and come back one of these days. 2005 (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've seen you around a lot but haven't taken the time to check out your edit history. I see that you have been a massive contributer to gambling related articles and WP! Take it easy and hope to have you back on board one of these days. Hazir (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Afd under scope of Project

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Casinoeuro is up for deletion. 2005 (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Darvin Moon GAN

Hey all. I've nominated Darvin Moon for GAN. I'd like some feedback on the nomination; I know it's short, but as he is mainly known as runner-up of one tournament, I think it's natural that it would be short, even though I feel it's probably fairly comprehensive. If one of you would like to review it, too, it would probably be ideal to have someone from the WikiProject Poker take a look at it... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris Moneymaker article content

There is a content/text dispute on the Chris Moneymaker talk page that starts here and then there are other sections below it that could use feedback from Project members. 2005 (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)