Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 1

Use of second person
Many of the articles on poker strategy use the second person ("you"). In particular, I've been guilty of writing in second person. The use of second person is discouraged in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. However, when I read through the articles with an eye toward rewriting out of second person, it seems awkward: "you" becomes "a player" and "opponent" becomes "a player's opponents". Should we try to rewrite into second person or agree that second person is acceptable in strategy articles?--Toms2866 13:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd try to always avoid the second person. 2005 20:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've starting going back through the various strategy articles to edit out the 2nd person.--Toms2866 21:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments on Poker strategy
, I've completely rewritten the Poker strategy article. The [previous version] didn't seem to match up with the depth and tone of the other major poker articles. I tried to avoid duplication of content from existing articles (e.g., pot odds, poker probability), instead introducing the concept and linking to the appropriate related article. However, it's a first draft and would benefit from additional eyes.

I'd appreciate feedback (on Talk:Poker strategy). --Toms2866 16:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Open Ended
As an easy kick off (I hope) I'd like to see some opinion on Open Ended, I was going to move to Open-ended, but that already exists for a different purpose. I figure that it should really be Open-ended straight draw. At present the article is an orphan so getting the right name space would be beneficial before any linking it gets makes it more work. --Alf melmac 21:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How about... Open-ended_(poker) The parentheses is a common way to do disambiguation, and also is used fairly often with poker articles now.  I'd suggest that we try to use that format in general, unless there was a real good reason to choose some other method. 2005 22:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll side with 2005 here, per the precedents. Essexmutant 23:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Can I join this project? I really like poker and would like to help. The Eye of Timaeus 01:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As per all WikiProjects, anyone who is interested in improving the subject area's articles can join. Welcome! Essexmutant 08:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes folks. My favorite version of poker is Razz. No. Really. :) I'm weird, what can I say. I don't have alot of online poker experience but my best finish ever (2nd in a Full Tilt tourney) was in razz. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Renamed page to Open-ended (poker). – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 20:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is just my opinion, but that page is kind of a definition and probably should deleted. Tbe information it conatains could be included in the poker jargon page. Sucker straight 18:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily disagree about combining it, however there are a number of similar terms in the Category:Poker gameplay and terminology, so really the decision should be made on the articles in this category as a group. Figure out which ones deserve their own article and which should be combined.  This only issue I sort of have is that the poker jargon article is already pretty big, and most of the definitions are shorter than Open-ended (poker). – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 10:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject link on Talk pages
I've added about 100 links from poker-related talk pages to this project. This should increase the number of members of the project. For a full list of pages within the project currently (and I will be adding more when I have time), see Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Poker. Essexmutant 10:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Seperate re-directs on WSOP articles
How about making seperate re-directs for the WSOP articles, for example, make a re-direct for World Series of Poker, 1971 as 1971 World Series of Poker or The 2nd Annual World Series of Poker? Let me know on my user talk page or this page. The Eye of Timaeus 21:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I brought it up a few weeks ago but never got around to it. Yeah, if you type in "1979 World Series of Poker" right now, it doesn't do anything. Need to make them redirects since people know it as X World Series of Poker and not World Series of Poker, X. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Or alternatively we can move them all. I set them up as WSOP, year  as this was done already with World Series of Poker, 2004 and World Series of Poker, 2005 by the user who created them. There's nothing wrong with changing the others so long as we are consistant. Essexmutant 09:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Moving them would work too since like I said, people know them as X World Series of Poker. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, so what is the decision? The Eye of Timaeus 23:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would expect a move would be preferable. Essexmutant 00:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Did we decide on a move? If so, to what? X World Series of Poker? As in 1979 World Series of Poker? If that's the decision, I can do the moves tonight. I'm an admin so moves are a bit easier for me. It'd be late tonight. Let me know. I would also make redirects from X WSOP to X World Series of Poker as well. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen anyone disagree with a move, so I would go ahead and do it. What you are proposing sounds great. Thanks. Essexmutant 15:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have moved them. The Eye of Timaeus 22:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Essexmutant 00:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I will make the X WSOP redirects tonight. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Complete. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Newbies
Just joined in the poker group. Thinking of adding a few more articles but don't want to stand on any ones toes. Where do I suggest articles I'm going to work on? Also, is there a section on work to be done? Poker Edd (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, welcome to the project. Check the Tasks section at WikiProject Poker. Feel free to discuss things on the Talk page, or just add it to the task list when you start doing it. Any questions, feel free to ask. Cheers. Essexmutant 15:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Essexmutant, So if I thought there should be more content about online poker tournaments specifically Sit and Go’s, whether they are STT or MTT, and scheduled tournaments, where would I put my case for adding it? I have several other ideas about this subject as there are more online poker players playing tournaments then there are playing ring games. If you type in sit and go in the Wiki search it points to Poker tournament which doesn’t cover the subject adequately. Poker Edd (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The tournament venues section could include a paragraph about online events, although it sounds like you think it would deserve much more space than that, which I am skeptical about. What a sit and go is should definitely be explained somewhere and linked from appropriate articles, but other online tournaments don't differ fundamentally from real world ones otherwise so there isn't that much to say. 2005 19:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello everyone
Sorry I've not been able to contribute since setting this up, had a busy couple of days. It's great to see so much activity on the project so quickly, and I'm looking forward to joining in. CTOAGN (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Poker Games
Might want to collect all the poker games together. Along with each of their strategy pages (if they have one, if not, then make one or at least add some strategy into the article for the game). I also noticed that some of the poker game pages don't throughly explain the game. These are usually the less popular poker games (not Texas or Omaha). Will be helping when I can. 70.111.207.230 14:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah he has some good points. I noticed that Razz doesn't have it's own page. We have a page for Ace-To-Five Low but no Razz. Razz isn't extremely popular, but I figure that if it has a WSOP event, we should have an article with the title. Everyone agree with that? IIRC 2 Razz events next year. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Razz currently redirects to Stud poker. It could be worthwhile defining the differences. Essexmutant 15:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project
Hi, I'm a member of the Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

High Stakes Poker
I created the article. Any useful edits are welcome. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good work Woohoo. I've given it a touch-up. Fixed a couple of links and tried to make it more consistant with the other articles. Essexmutant 13:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Question though. Should it be in the poker tournament category? It's not really a tournament. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. It shouldn't. Obviously wasn't thinking when I added it. I've removed it now. Essexmutant 13:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I do wonder if we need a "televised poker" category. Certainly enough shows for it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Essexmutant 13:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It would probably need to be either poker on television or poker television programs. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Poker television programs sounds more like a category than the other, so I would go with that. Essexmutant 15:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I created it and I added a bunch of programs to the list. I also went ahead and wrote an article on Fox Sports Net's Learn from the Pros series. And also King of Vegas. I'm hot tonight. :) I'm usually just an editor type but hey. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding suggested articles about "The Crew"
While I don't object to articles about people who merit one (Brett Jungblut and Russ Boyd would qualify here), there is no "Crew" now with some of these guys now very hostile to each other. It was just a silly media nickname that no longer has any meaning so, unlike the Hendon Mob, I wouldn't want us to do anything about it except a brief mention in anybody's article. 2005 03:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well. Articles about the former Crew then. :-D --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed an article was created on Russ Boyd. I have given it a cleanup and a slight expansion, plus linked it from 2003 WSOP and 2004 WSOP. Anything else welcome. Essexmutant 15:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Poker Superstars this Sunday
There's a Poker Superstars II one-table 8-player invitational this Sunday on NBC. Is there any chance someone in the US can watch it and update the Poker Superstars Invitational Tournament page with the results? Essexmutant 09:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have complete results, but the top four players were:
 * 1st: Todd Brunson
 * 2nd: Ted Forrest
 * 3rd: Carlos Mortenson
 * 4th: Scotty Nguyen


 * Thanks Doug. Any news on prize money? Essexmutant 23:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a winner-take-all format. Not sure what the prize was, but I think it was $500,000. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 01:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers. Someone's updated the article itself with 5th-8th. Essexmutant 09:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding poker players birthdays and deathdays to year articles
I noticed Doyle Brunson' birthday was on the 1933 article. Do you think we should do add that information for each poker player who has their exact birthday and/or deathday on Wikipedia? The Eye of Timaeus 19:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think only the very notable poker players should be added to the day and year articles. Perhaps the top 10 or 20. Doyle would certainly qualify. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 19:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, by top 10 or 20, do you mean the 10 or 20 players who have won the most money in live tournament poker or the 10 or 20 best players who have been the best for a long time? The Eye of Timaeus 20:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Top 10/20 is too difficult to quantify. Best to look at it on a case-by-case basis I think. Essexmutant 11:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I broadly agree with Doug Bell. Maybe WSOP champions only, or is there anyone I've missed that would be notable enough?  CTOAGN (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * T. J. Cloutier. Essexmutant 11:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's still early. Someone will no doubt mention Negreanu and Ivey as well.  Case-by-case is probably best then.  CTOAGN (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, determining "best" is really difficult. And you can argue that even some of the WSOP champs might not be notable enough. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we should do any players who are known for what they have done for poker, any of the well known WSOP champions, and some players who have been a great player for a while. The Eye of Timaeus 21:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Players without articles on WSOP pages
On the 2005 World Series of Poker a user has linked all the players not previously linked. This means that there are a lot of links to people who are unlikely to ever have articles, and also numerous links to incorrect people - e.g.: William Shaw, Chad Brown, Matthew Smith. I propose that we do not link people until they have an article on Wikipedia. Otherwise, in addition to looking messy, we would have to link everyone on all the other WSOP pages to be consistant. Any comments? Essexmutant 18:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think notable players who should have a page, but do not yet have a page can remain linked even though the page does not exist (i.e. players that are on the to do list for this project.) I expect that this would not be a large group.  The rest should not have links. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 19:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Done per agreement. Essexmutant 10:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixing WSOP links
I have noticed that some links to different WSOP articles are re-directs, I am going to fix them. The Eye of Timaeus 21:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Updating to as of 2006
On many articles, the players money totals are still as of 2005, can I/we fix them, or just leave them. I want to be sure before I do something. The Eye of Timaeus 01:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest leaving it as "as of 2005" until they have a tournament cash in 2006 (check Hendon Mob to be sure.) Essexmutant 22:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Johnny Chan
Take a look at Johnny Chan (poker player). Is that good enough or more organization needed? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why I added it to the Outstanding tasks. Needs a big clean-up to organise the information better. Essexmutant 16:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Update - just seen your edit. Much improved. Essexmutant 16:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments on Poker probability (Texas hold 'em)
I've extensively expanded Poker probability (Texas hold 'em) (more than 80% of the article is new material now vs. what was there before). Instead of just making it tables and lists of probabilities, of which there are numerous examples on the Internet, I thought it should explain how to calculate various probabilities and then give a list of probabilities. As the article stands now, it is maybe half completed for what I see as the final version. Left to be done:


 * Expand the section "Hands with one ace" to discuss and show the probabilities against multiple opponents.
 * Add the following sections to "Dominated hands"
 * Hands without an ace
 * Add the following sections to "Starting hands"
 * Bigger flush draws
 * Bigger straight draws
 * Extensively expand the section "The flop" to discuss the probability of different hands either improving on the flop, not improving, or flops that undermine the strength of a hand
 * Expand the section "After the flop" to discuss in more depth (not really sure what I want to put in here yet)
 * Added section on "Runner-runner outs"

I'd appreciate any feedback (on Talk:Poker probability (Texas hold 'em)) regarding
 * 1) the changes I've made to the page;
 * 2) my proposed additions above; and
 * 3) any other topics that should be included on the page.

Thanks, – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 22:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The changes look great, do you think you can make a similar page for Omaha hold 'em ? Also, can you link the poker probability pages with the combinatorial game theory and game complexity pages? 128.6.175.60 20:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Images
I've started adding a few images to the poker player articles (see Dave Ulliott, Gus Hansen, David Williams (card player), Jesse May, Kathy Kolberg, Dave Welch. They may not be the greatest images in the world, but they can act as a placeholder until such a stage as someone wishes to replace them. Comments welcome. I'm not doing them in any particular order though. Essexmutant 20:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Style, Structure and Consistency
Right now there is a little problem with the SEO employee of Bodog trying to keyword stuff the link text of the Bodog article. Talk:Bodog It should be a mission of this project to keep all poker and Category:Poker companies articles sane, spam free, stylistically consistent and of course non-reptitive. In the Bodog case the SEO wants to stuff poker/casino words in the link text which of course are obviously redundant to the article which covers what the company is about. The normal style of using "Official site" seems fine to me, but I could also go for "PartyGaming official site" or something like that. Whatever, I would like it if we could come to some agreement here on what style is appropriate for all such articles, then when stuff like this keyword stuffing comes up with one article we can refer to this discussion. There are other things I'd like to discuss in this broad area in the future, but for now I would appreciate comments here and on the Bodog discussion page reflecting an agreement and desire to handle all issues like this in a consistently fair and sensible way, rather than allow seo employees from various businesses try to top each other. Thanks. 2005 23:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just using Official Site seems fine. Essexmutant 08:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Jason Viriyayuthakorn
I do not see how this article can be expanded, because his one appearance on ESPN is basically his only good finish in a major tournament (WSOP and WPT). Does anyone have any ideas on how to expand it? The Eye of Timaeus 02:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing immediately comes to mind. If it wasn't for the fact that he gets name-checked at least a couple of times in the James McManus book Positively Fifth Street I'd never have heard of him. Essexmutant 03:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

An idea
ESPN Classic showed the 2002 WSOP final table tonight. It was noteworthy as the first time ESPN used the pocket cam (they called it the "sneak peek" at the time). Anyway, I realized that we have absolutely nothing on ESPN's coverage of the event. We could get a list of the years they've covered the WSOP and what commentators they have used for each year. We could also expand the Norman Chad article. If anything else, we can incorporate some of his more memorable quotes (I particularly like "He'd play with a 10 and a card from an Uno deck if he could" when talking about Josh Arieh). We also have very little on Lon McEachern. Just some ideas. I think I'll add Chad and McEachern to the tasks list. Let me know what you think about adding a section to the WSOP article about ESPN's coverage. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea to me. One advantage of doing it from scratch is that we can keep it consistant across all the articles. For anyone in the UK that's interested, the 1998 World Series of Poker is on The Poker Channel today (Sunday) too. Not sure, but potentially quotes should be placed at WikiQuote and its subpages. That may also be a good place to stick some of the Mike Matusow vs Shahram Sheikhan stuff from the 2005 WSOP coverage. Also plenty of quotes from Late Night Poker on IMDB could be incorporated there. Essexmutant 05:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool. I should see if there's a list of ESPN's commentators somewhere. In the mid 90s, they used actor Dick Van Patten and tourney director Jim Albright as commentators alot. In 2002, it was Lon with Gabe Kaplan with some help from Phil Hellmuth and Chris Ferguson. We could also provide a link to ESPN's WSOP schedule or the WSOP schedule for The Poker Channel. I'll see what I can do tonight. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The Poker Channel isn't very good when it comes to keeping to their schedules, but their schedule information is here. Could maybe add a trivia section to relevant WSOP's too, as exists at the 2005 one currently. Stuff like the Hellmuth/Varkonyi hair incident is probably worth including. Essexmutant 05:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Roxci Rhodes
Someone created an article on this player. I'd suggest her importance is questionable, although I have cleaned up her article and linked her from List of poker players, Category:American poker players, Ultimate Poker Challenge and Ultimate Poker Challenge season 3 results. If anyone wants to put her on AFD, I won't object. Essexmutant 06:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Btw
The Community Portal has a new bulletin board section. I went ahead and posted the existence of the new Wikiproject Poker. Hopefully it'll get us some new blood. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

WSOP and ESPN
I added a section on ESPN's coverage of the WSOP on the WSOP page. I also have an incomplete list of the broadcasters they have used. Any help would be appreciated. I know that Vince Van Patten did at least one year and Lon also did one or two others. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

List of poker players
Just wondering if this page is really needed anymore, now that Category:Poker players seem to be working well with the individual players. The list certainly isn't adding anything unique (at present) that cannot be gained from the categories. It also has very few pages linking into it (see Whatlinkshere). The Notable authors of poker books/articles section could be a separate page, as could the Casino executives and game promoters section. The See also links are all debatable as most, if not all of them are linked from poker tournament and/or Template:Major Poker Tournaments. Any thoughts? Essexmutant 15:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it could be cut down to just the book list and renamed List of poker books. The only other use it serves is the list of red links indicating players that might need an article, but that list (which is surprisingly short) could be copied to the project page. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 10:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Window artist
This isn't a term I've heard of, but I came across it, categorised it and cleaned it up. Can anyone verify this term? Essexmutant 15:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't verify it, but it sees like it should just go on Poker jargon instead of its own page. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 19:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Total vanity entry. Zero uses on internet besides this article.  It really should be deleted rather than redirected, but minimally it should be redirected as it obviously merits no article. 2005 19:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll add it to poker jargon and redirect. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * When I went to look at its alleged definition, it was completely different than I expected it to be. Since the bottom card of your face-down hand is sometimes called the window card, I expected a window artist to be someone who made a practice of peeking at other players' cards. -- MSchmahl 20:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the vanity entry. The term doesn't exist. 2005 20:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Question
Unless I am missing something, we don't have anything at all on the World Series of Poker "circuit" events. Here is the list of the results. I'm thinking we need a page with the results given it's relatively good competition to the WPT (with top pros Jeff Lisandro, Chris Ferguson and Daniel Negreanu all winning titles so far). Thoughts? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm all for that. Recommend keeping the same format as the WPT results (e.g.: World Poker Tour season 1 results) and having a separate page for each season's circuit. Essexmutant 11:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I know that pokerpages just lists them all as "2005". Not sure how WSOP wants to divy it up. ESPN has a strange schedule with it. They showed all of the pre-WSOP circuit events right before the WSOP coverage and it looks like they are going to do it again for 2006 even though these tourneys go back to November. Kind of strange. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The first season led up to the 2005 World Series of Poker Tournament of Champions, and the second season is leading up to the 2006 WSOP ToC. I'm not convinced ESPN showed every event. Might need to confirm that. Essexmutant 11:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hard to know. Their schedule is irregular in regards to the WSOP unless it's the WSOP itself. I added a link to ESPN Classic's schedule on the WSOP page. They do one rebroadcast every morning. Other than that, it's really hit or miss. My favorite game (razz) has it's only ESPN coverage rerun on Saturday AM it looks like. Final 3 was Cloutier, Lederer and Dutch Boyd. They just keep saying "I hate this game!". It's hilarious. :) Anyway...hopefully they will announce when the circuit events will be shown. It was my understanding that all would be shown eventually. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've got all of the 2005 WSOP coverage somewhere, including all the preliminaries. Will check it out at some stage. Essexmutant 13:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor or not?
I am going to go around later to update each players' career winnings if their is a significant change, so I want to know if updating career winnings is a minor edit or not? The Eye of Timaeus 15:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest it could be either, although to me I probably would not mark it as minor. See also Minor_edit. Further to this, 2005 and me were discussing a while ago how to format the winnings. What we agreed (and is now essentially the Project's choice) is that we should round it down to the lower $100,000 amount, e.g.: $2,876,543 becomes $2,600,000. I would suggest that figures below $1,000,000 could go to the lower $50,000. The point is that it should not appear to be a precise figure when it will thereby become out-of-date much faster. Thanks for volunteering to update the figures by the way. Essexmutant 15:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It should not be a minor edit as it is a material change to the article. (And Essexmutant, I assume $2,876,543 should become $2,800,000...)  Another point would be that including "As of date" in the text is recommended for any information that may become dated quickly (as is done in most of the articles). – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 18:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right Doug. Thanks for pointing that out. Essexmutant 18:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Conventions should be documented
Essexmutant states:

"Further to this, 2005 and me were discussing a while ago how to format the winnings. What we agreed (and is now essentially the Project's choice) is that we should round it down to the lower $100,000 amount, e.g.: $2,876,543 becomes $2,800,000. I would suggest that figures below $1,000,000 could go to the lower $50,000."

I think the project page is the perfect place to document any agreed upon conventions. Changes to them can then be discussed here on the talk page. I suggest adding a "Conventions" section (or perhaps as a subsection to "General strategy and discussion forums") to the project page and document any conventions that have been agreed to by consensus. Being newer to the project, I don't necessarily know what those are, so I'll count on someone else to add them. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 18:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll try to put something together on that. Essexmutant 20:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Career Earnings
Could have included this above I guess but I wanted to make an entry specifically about this topic. First I'll just say that I don't like the career winnings entries at all because, while technically correct, they can be wildly inaccurate in reality for many players who played before 2000. The info on TJ Cloutier or Miami John Cernuto or Men Nguyen is off by a degree of greater than 100%. But, I don't think I can convince y'all to delete the career earnings entries, so I just want to encourage everyone to not be very rigid about this info. "Winnings exceed" is a good start, but please just be careful to not say thigs like "career winnings are". 2005 20:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How about expanding it to "total verifiable tournament winnings exceed $x"? Whilst still not ideal, this should make it slightly better. Essexmutant 20:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not really right either since someone could easily verify some specific tournament in 1996 if they have a result sheet or cardplayer. "total tournament winnings since 2000 exceed"... would require subtracting everything prior to 2000, which wouldn't be good either. 2005 20:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Poker television programs
Shouldn't we have an article poker television programs about their history, current state, and to integrate all the seperate articles we have about this subject. S Sepp 10:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea. I'll add it to the task list. Essexmutant 12:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And I'm finished. :) If anyone has anything to add, feel free. I'm sure I missed a program or two and the text part is bare bones. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Poker Superstars 3
Does anyone have any information on the start-date for this series? Apparently it's March 2006, but does anyone know anything more precise? Any volunteers to help keep track of the results? Essexmutant 12:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah I don't know. I've tried looking several times but haven't been able to find anything. I'll volunteer to keep track of the information. I usually watch it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks mate. Essexmutant 16:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Update - apparently it starts on March 12 from 8pm on FSN affiliates. Essexmutant 09:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK doke. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder here. The new season starts tomorrow night. Help keeping track of the results and completing the list of participants would be appreciated. Just post them on the Talk page if you don't have time to format the info yourself. Thanks in advance. Essexmutant 16:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Watching the 1995 WSOP
I think one of our overriding goals (not now but eventually) is to get all of the main event final table people into Wikipedia. Is there ANY World Series of Poker books out there that would list things like bios of the final table participants? We could get some information from the ESPN broadcasts, which usually started with intros of the players with quick bios. Again. Not something for now as we have lots to do before then but an idea for the future. Backburner so to speak. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This book is the only thing I can find... US UK. Essexmutant 16:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hello all. Hope no one minds me joining in the fun. Updating Wikipedia helps fight boredom. Sucker straight 18:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure you can join. :) More the merrier. We have lots to do, so we can use all of the help we can get. For such a high profile sport (especially in the US and Europe), we didn't have much coverage on here. So any help you can give would be great. Take a look at the outstanding tasks and see what you want to do. Welcome! --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added tables of bracelet wins for the players who have 4 or more. I'll probably do that for everyone who have three as well.  Also been working on adding pictures of players.


 * Welcome to the project. Essexmutant 02:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I added WSOP as a featured article candidate
I know we're a long ways away from even nominating the WSOP article as a featured article candidate, but I think we all agree that it's one of our goals. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also added Poker as a future FAC. I'm going to tackle that one tonight. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Might be worth submitting it for a Peer review to see how much work needs to be done currently. Essexmutant 02:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me work on it a bit. I think that for right now, Poker is more ready than WSOP. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Spam, Vandals, POV and Rant Alerts
I have hundreds of the poker pages on my watchlist so it isn't a major thing to revert spam, POV and ranting entries, but it would be nice if there was a section of the Project page where any of the particpants could add a notation about any pages currently being attacked one way or another, so others of us who don't currently have the page on our watchlists could keep an eye on it to. I don't mean that any page vandalized once would be included, but currently the Bodog and PartyGaming have had more than one highly opinionated/inappropriate edits made to them. Previously others like Phil Hellmuth and Chris Moneymaker faced similar attacks. Of course the higher profile pages like online poker and poker get spammed all the time, but those are pretty easily handled. I'd just like us to have something in place where reverting would be done by at least two contributors here, rather than one person continually reverting any garbage on the more obscure articles. Anyway, I'm not yet very familar with the Project template page so it would be nice if someone could create a Spam/Vandal section. 2005 19:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added an Attacks section to the Project page. Feel free to add items. Should be useful, so long as it doesn't become a list of pages that potential vandals will choose to target. Essexmutant 02:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Card Crusade spammers
Mid-March 2006. Two apparent owners/employees of Cardcrusade.com have been attempting to spam the rake and online poker articles with pov intended to promote their subscription based cardroom in contrast to cardrooms that earn their income via conventional methods. Even if the aim wasn't to promote their site, the aggressive POV of the additions are extremely inappropriate and should be reverted, even if some properly worded sentences on the topic might be useful. I hope people will please keep an eye on these articles, and any others relating to cardrooms and the finacial aspects of the poker business, to protect them against this promo/pov stuff. 2005 02:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have warned this user re: spam on his Talk page. If the user continues to spam, please let me know and we'll get him suspended at the very least. Essexmutant 09:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but your re-editing of the content is extermely inappropriate and not exactly informative to your readers. When questioned why you even refuse to allow to stand the simple factual information you refused to answer, and when further questioned about whether you have any invested interest in thsi subject you again refused to comment. So it seems we have a case of conflicted interest here, or at best uneducated and narrow minded viewpoints.

It is undeniable that the the issue of rake is THE issue regarding profitable poker, and yet you refuse to allow to stand even the most objective and informative paragrpahs intended to educate your readers. I smell something fishy, and I question your integrity and abuse of your position. If you have are willing to engage in a sensible debate I open to it, but I suspect again you will just delete my posts. It is a shame really, and it makes me lose respect for the integrity of Wikipedia as whole....afterall what other useful information never gets through the cracks because the editor is so obstinate and ill-informed. Which make have to ask the question: how on earth did you land the role of editor of the poker articles, I mean seriously what background do you have and what level of authority? It would be honorable of you to let myself and all your readers know. But I won't hold my breath.


 * You spammed your URL in multiple inappropriate places and refused to engage in any discussion of issues beyond an insistence that you were justified in promoting your product. This is an encyclopedia, not a marketing tool for your company.  Either contribute objective, accurate content or don't.  In any case, please stop the inflamatory nonsense, if only because it contributes nothing besides wasting time.  Finally, perhaps instead of complaining that you aren't able to inappropriately promte your company, you can take a minute to uderstand that this encyclopedia has a great deal of content on a great deal of topics.  Instead of only looking to your promotional self-interest, maybe you should consider contributing to the good of the project. 2005 03:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Numerous projects use Infoboxes for people with articles about them. I propose using one for WikiProject Poker. This would standardise the size of images on pages and allow for an "at-a-glance" view of the numerous players we have profiled here at Wikipedia.

The fields I have included below are for example only. Debate is welcomed. I am suggesting using the WSOP, WPT and EPT as the highlighted tournaments as they are the most prominant. Essexmutant 11:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Number 1, you are a god. :) Number 2, that's a wonderful idea. Looks good to me! --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks... I just try my best. :) If I get a thumbs-up from a couple more members of the project, I'll assume this is a go-ahead to add the infobox to the articles. Essexmutant 13:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * infoboxes are good for quick hitting info. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly like standardizing pictures, but here I believe you need to remove the winnings line from the boxes, even referencing the hendon Mob as it does. The information is false more often than true. Putting a line in an article that says "exceeds" is technically accurate, if quite deceptive.  Having the line in the info box is purely deceptive.  I see no reason for it being there.  It just happens that we have no idea about the total tournament winnings of poker players.  There is no reason to pretend we do, and lots of reasons not to have it.  Additionally, the line about best WSOP main event finish should be removed as it is also totally inaccurate.  Saying Miami John has "none" is simply false.  I'm not a big fan of the EPT and WPT given equal status as the WSOP since they are like rookies in the company of a Hall of Fame player.  Personally I would prefer: photo, hometown, World series titles.  Adding the WPT and EPT could be okay I guess, but please don't include the blatantly inaccurate stuff like career winnings or best finish. 2005 20:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. Technically it is true that Miami John has no money finishes in the main event. I realise that's not what the field indicated, but it can be changed. I have re-worded this on a suggested updated infobox (tested on Dave Ulliott, see right). Is that an improvement? (I realise the ITM page is rather poor currently.) Obviously, if it's consensus of opinion to remove it then so be it. I have removed the total winnings for the time being, unless anyone wishes to argue the case for its re-inclusion. Essexmutant 21:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice improvement. The in the money part does address the issue, as long as we are confident we have lists for each main event of in the money finishes. Good job. 2005 21:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I am confident that The Hendon Mob database lists ITM finishes for each year's WSOP main event. I have also updated the remaining infoboxes on the right. Essexmutant 22:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Update - I have added infoboxes to several players. Upon doing so I realised it was filling up too much of the screen's real-estate and showed up problems with some low-res images. As such I have made the boxes slightly smaller. Essexmutant 13:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Update: added two more examples, as examples of ones without current pictures.

Why not have them for the different Poker games as well? 165.230.46.150 18:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Poker games don't lend itself to info boxes since the games can be played in almost any style, wide varieties of numbers, etc. The ridiculous box placed on the poker page a couple times was totally wrong. Info boxes offer info at a glance. Poker player accomplishments lend themselves to that; poker games do not. 2005 20:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Business side of poker
Hi all! I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and to this project, so not sure how these projects work 100%.

I added the poker tag to Anurag Dikshit and Vikrant Bhargava, the founders of PartyGaming. Not players but drivers of the business side of the game. Is there anywhere I should note this addition on the project main page? I couldn't really find an applicable spot.

And on another note why does my edit on this page not appear BELOW the pictures to the right? Looks messy, edit away if you want. SmartGuy 17:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's just the way infoboxes work. They span through subheadings in a page from the point where they are first referenced onwards. There's no place to point out new articles as such, but feel free to point them out here on the Talk page. Essexmutant 18:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, if you don't want an image or infobox to span through subheadings, you can place the following HTML before the heading:  like this:

My heading doesn't want your infobox spanning into it

 * – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 10:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

National Heads-Up Poker Championship
Did anyone join Gabe Kaplan for the commentary on NBC? I also added the article to poker on television. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ed Miller
Just came across this article today. Is it worth keeping, or is it something for AFD? Essexmutant 15:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * He's a notable author. He merits an article, even if this one is non-riveting. 2005 19:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories
There's several poker players who are in multiple nationality categories, covering their birth country and national country. I personally feel there is value in keeping both. For example, one would expect to find Carlos Mortensen (living in Spain, born in Ecuador) in Category:Spanish poker players rather than Category:Ecuadorian poker players, but one would expect to find Peter Costa in Category:English poker players rather than Category:American poker players, etc. Can we come to an agreement on this for a way-forward? Essexmutant 09:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is difficult, for example, why wouldn't Peter Costa, a Cypriot, be an American player if he lives in the US? Why isn't Mel Judah Australian, UK, and American?  Why isn't Carlos Mortensen listed as an American player (certainly as reasonable as a Spanish one)?  A very high percentage of the non-US players who have played in the US do live in the US now.  In contrast, Tony G hasn't been an Australian in a decade or more. So, we could list some of these guys in as many as four categories, which would be fine if that is what people want to do, but then any criteria is subjective.  Spending a summer in France won't make someone a French player, but what about living in the US for four years?  I'd suggest: pick either one or two categories, and then not worry about it too much. However, for flags on WSOP results, that should be consistent otherwise it would be very weird, so I'd suggest keeping that to birth countries. 2005 09:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Two categories should cover 95%+ of players. Obviously some common sense needs to be used when it comes to people spending a month's holiday somewhere. We'll keep to birth countries for all the results pages. Essexmutant 10:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey There
Hi there, hope you don't mind me helping out you guys :) GL3N 23:05, 09 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free. The more the merrier! Essexmutant 09:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

New Articles Created
As asked I've created an article for Brett_Jungblut > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Jungblut, please check it out and tell me, edit where appropriate. I have also added the following article as well > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Kendall. Many Thanks, GL3N 23:48, 09 March 2006 (UTC)

Newest Article added > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Franklin - 00:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well done. I've made a few formatting changes to all of them, just for consistancy with the other articles on poker players. You may wish to review these for information as it may be useful when you make future edits. Essexmutant 09:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes
I've added alot of infoboxes to Poker players that didn't have any, check them out mainly on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Series_of_Poker Winners and Runners Up. - GL3N 01:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Good work. Thanks. Essexmutant 09:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks Essexmutant, much appreciated, sorry they were a little wrong lol, thanks again :) GL3N 20:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Btw
2005 National Heads-Up Poker Championship is being aired every Friday on CNBC in the US for anyone interested. I updated the article. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Poker Nations Cup
... starts broadcasting tonight in the UK on Channel 4, for all those interested. Countries involved: Great Britain, United States, Denmark, Republic of Ireland, Sweden and Germany. Essexmutant 16:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I added Rodney H. Pardey
Rodney H. Pardey is a famous seven-card stud player. (unsigned comment added by Vegasman1976.)
 * I've gone through this and given it a cleanup, wikifying sections, etc. The tone does seem to be incorrect for a Wikipedia article though, and I have to wonder if the text is copyvio. Essexmutant 09:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Update - there is also an article on Rodney E. Pardey (which I moved from Rod Pardey for completeness. I have created a disambig page at Rodney Pardey (Rod Pardey now redirects there.) Essexmutant 10:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up further. I imagine the author is a family member. 2005 11:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Added Statbox also, GL3N 01:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary to include many blank lines in players' infoboxes?
I honestly don't see the value of including data on hundreds of player's pages for tournament series that they've never been in. It just seems like it's wasting a huge amount of space on too many biography pages. Why not just include the World Series of Poker, World Poker Tour, and European Poker Tour on pages for those few players who have placed in all three, and for everyone else only include the ones they've been in? Much more efficient that way, and would save a hell of a lot of space on hundreds of pages that's currently being used up by uninformative blank lines.

Since so many poker player articles on Wikipedia are American (and since not a single American player's article has any stats for the EPT), non-Americans' nationalities are noted in parentheses. This should help demonstrate that this problem of inefficient space usage is almost as pronounced for non-Americans.

The following players have stats for WSoP, WPT, and EPT:


 * Patrik Antonius (Finnish)
 * Andrew Black (Irish)
 * Tony Bloom (English)
 * Barny Boatman (English)
 * Ross Boatman (English)
 * Martin De Knijff (Swedish)
 * John Gale (poker player) (English)
 * Kirill Gerasimov (Russian)
 * Gus Hansen (Danish)
 * Rob Hollink (Dutch)
 * Marcel Lüske (Dutch)
 * Isabelle Mercier (Canadian)
 * Padraig Parkinson (Irish)
 * Willie Tann (English)

The following players have stats for WSoP and WPT, but not EPT:


 * Josh Arieh
 * Joe Awada
 * Eli Balas
 * Billy Baxter (poker player)
 * Jim Bechtel
 * Joe Beevers (English)
 * Jean-Robert Bellande
 * Chris Bjorin (English)
 * Andy Bloch
 * John Bonetti
 * Farzad Bonyadi
 * Chad Brown (actor)
 * Doyle Brunson
 * Todd Brunson
 * Vince Burgio
 * John Cernuto
 * Johnny Chan (poker player)
 * Neil Channing (English)
 * David Chiu
 * Dave Colclough (Welsh)
 * Peter Costa (English)
 * Allen Cunningham
 * Hamid Dastmalchi
 * Brad Daugherty (poker player)
 * Roland De Wolfe (English)
 * Kassem Deeb
 * Harry Demetriou (English)
 * John Duthie
 * Eli Elezra
 * Sam Farha (Lebanese)
 * Chris Ferguson
 * Scott Fischman
 * Bruno Fitoussi (French)
 * Layne Flack
 * Tom Franklin
 * Tony G (Australian)
 * Alan Goehring
 * Maciek Gracz (Polish)
 * Barry Greenstein
 * David Grey
 * Joe Hachem (Australian)
 * Russ Hamilton
 * Jennifer Harman
 * Dan Harrington
 * Phil Hellmuth
 * Juha Helppi (Finnish)
 * John Hennigan (poker player)
 * Matthew Hilger
 * Bobby Hoff
 * Phil Ivey
 * Kenna James
 * Chip Jett
 * John Juanda
 * Mel Judah (Australian)
 * Thomas Keller (card player)
 * Phil Laak
 * Nam Le
 * Howard Lederer
 * Hans Lund
 * Tony Ma
 * Mike Matusow
 * Tom McEvoy
 * James McManus
 * Michael Mizrachi
 * Chris Moneymaker
 * Carlos Mortensen (Ecuardoran)
 * John Myung (poker player)
 * Daniel Negreanu (Canadian)
 * Men Nguyen
 * Scotty Nguyen
 * David Pham
 * Bon Phan
 * Paul Phillips (poker player)
 * Greg Raymer
 * Chip Reese
 * Ben Roberts (English)
 * Blair Rodman
 * Huck Seed
 * Erik Seidel
 * Mark Seif
 * Jeff Shulman
 * David Sklansky
 * Jan Sørensen (Danish)
 * Surinder Sunar (English)
 * Marco Traniello (Italian)
 * Chris Tsiprailidis
 * Dave Ulliott (English)
 * Amir Vahedi (Iranian)
 * James Van Alstyne
 * Lee Watkinson
 * David Williams (card player)
 * Robert Williamson III
 * Paul Wolfe (poker player)

The following players have stats for WSoP and EPT, but not WPT:


 * Noah Boeken (Dutch)
 * Roy Brindley (Irish)
 * Garry Bush (English)
 * Ivo Donev (Austrian)
 * John Falconer (English)
 * Julian Gardner (English)
 * John Kabbaj (English)
 * Tony Kendall (English)
 * Donnacha O'Dea (Irish)
 * Pascal Perrault (French)
 * John Shipley (English)
 * Jani Sointula (Finnish)
 * Ram Vaswani (English)
 * Mickey Wernick (English)

No players have stats for WPT and EPT, but not WSoP.

The following players have stats for WSoP, but not WPT or EPT:


 * Mickey Appleman
 * Jac Arama (English)
 * Bruce Atkinson (poker player) (English)
 * Steve Badger
 * Bobby Baldwin
 * Mark Banin (English)
 * Gary Berland
 * Russ Boyd
 * Carlo Citrone (English)
 * Steve Dannenmann
 * Liam Flood (Irish)
 * Hal Fowler
 * Noel Furlong (Irish)
 * Howard Goldfarb (Canadian)
 * Frank Henderson
 * Graham Hiew (English)
 * Randy Holland (Canadian)
 * Berry Johnston
 * Gary Jones (poker player) (English)
 * Brett Jungblut
 * Jack Keller
 * Ken Lennaárd (Swiss)
 * Mansour Matloubi (Welsh)
 * Roger Moore (poker player)
 * Johnny Moss
 * Rodney H. Pardey
 * Puggy Pearson
 * Sailor Roberts
 * Lucy Rokach (English)
 * Hemish Shah
 * Amarillo Slim
 * Bill Smith (poker player)
 * Jack Straus
 * Simon Trumper (English)
 * Stu Ungar
 * Robert Varkonyi
 * Marty Wilson (English)

The following players have stats for WPT, but not WSoP or EPT:


 * David Benyamine (French)
 * Tuan Le (French)
 * Adam Richardson
 * Dave Welch (English)

The following players have stats for EPT, but not WSoP or WPT:


 * Xuyen Pham (English)
 * Mark Teltscher (English)
 * Julian Thew (English)

The following players have no stats for WPT, none for WSoP, and none for EPT, yet for some reason use this infobox anyway:


 * Caspar Berry (English)
 * Victoria Coren (English)
 * Peter Evans (English)
 * Malcolm Harwood (English)
 * Korosh Nejad (Iranian)
 * Nic Szeremeta (English)
 * Steve Vladar (English)
 * Greg Winters (English)
 * David Young (poker player) (English)

-Silence 07:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the research. I don't personally have any objections if people want to make the changes. I'd recommend keeping the userbox for the sake of nickname(s), hometown and photo in all of them though. Essexmutant 16:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Update - all done. Took a while! Essexmutant 17:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't see this post earlier. I would have suggested just changing the template to not display empty entries...would have been a lot quicker way to do it. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 02:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Two new pages
Just a quick note that two new articles have been created by users: Alex Jacob and John Barch. I've done a quick tidy-up on both of them. Just letting you all know in case you need to add them to Watchlists, etc. Essexmutant 22:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Professional players and their online aliases
Some players' articles (examples: Prahlad Friedman, Mike Matusow, Noah Boeken) reveal the aliases that they use when they play poker online. This seems like it could be an invasion of privacy. I know some of these players make no effort to hide who they are, but others are more protective and I figure there should be a single protocol. What are your opinions? Is giving out online aliases kosher? SubSeven 07:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't do it unless a person's official site or a cardroom they have an official deal with mentions it. 2005 09:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would add that interviews with the person concerned should be considered valid. Also if the person concerned has publicised his online alias on an online forum (as Brian Wilson did at BlondePoker.) Essentially any source with a direct connection to the person should be okay. Essexmutant 10:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bracelet totals
The Hendon Mob have published the results of the preliminary events to the 1971 World Series of Poker - I have updated the Wikipedia page to represent this. This means potentially new bracelets for Johnny Moss, Puggy Pearson, Bill Boyd and Jimmy Casella. The only thing I'm not sure about is if they are bracelets or not. Were they handed out or not? The 1971 WSOP main event winner (Amarillo Slim) received one I believe, although when Moss won in 1970 he received a tin cup and no bracelet, but it is still counted amongst his bracelet wins. So, how do we want to count these? Should Johnny Moss now be considered a 9-time bracelet winner (as Phil Hellmuth was?). Any thoughts? (NB: I've already updated Pearson's article when I was doing other changes to it.) Essexmutant 19:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say no. If the official WSOP doesn't rate them as champions/bracelets, we should not, especially awarding a ninth "bracelet".  I would say that whatever Harrahs/WSOP says is what we should follow. 2005


 * I'll follow up a few leads on this, tap some sources I have. Will let you know what I find out. Essexmutant 00:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I added myself and the participants section is gone
To get this to appear again you have to click the small edit thing under Participants to see who is a member. Can someone fix this? Red Director 22:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. The end of table syntax was removed somehow. Essexmutant 23:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Aesthetics and Texas hold'em
Hello all - There seems to be some disagreement between myself and another editor regarding an aesthetic choice at Texas hold'em. The two versions to compare are: and. As this is pretty much an inituitive judgement call, I'd like to get some extra eyes to look into it. Please comment at Talk:Texas hold 'em. Thanks. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Additional category?
This is just a suggestion, but I was wondering if maybe we should have a category for women poker players. Does that seem like that something other people would consider worthwhile? MrCheshire 18:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it's needed to be honest. Poker is theoretically a level playing field, after all. Essexmutant 01:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Taking a WikiBreak
Just a quick note to point out to other project members that I'm taking a Wikiholiday, so my involvement in the project will not be as frequent as it has been recently. I'll try and check my talk page from time to time, and hope to still be able to do the odd update for ongoing TV shows such as Poker Superstars III. Cheers. Essexmutant 01:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of including players' nicknames seemingly everywhere
What is the rationale behind displaying players' nicknames on pages other than their individual articles? Of course it is prudent to mention known nicknames on an individual player's article, but it seems largely unnecessary, particularly when linking, to display players' nicknames throughout the rest of Wikipedia. Spicy 18:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that nicknames should seldom be used outside the bio article. A large number of the "nicknames" aren't even actually nicknames.  Miami John Cernuto is a nickname.  Everybody calls him "Miami".  Chip Reese is a nickname, everybody calls him "Chip". But there aren't five people on earth who have refered to Scotty Nguyen as "the Train" or Frank Henderson as "Hollywood".  While these are harmless, the Wikipedia would have no business saddling people with an unpleasant nickname that no one ever calls them to their face.  On the other hand, it would be wrong to refer to Chip Reese in articles as "David", so nicknames can sometimes be fine, but in general I'd say that the normal behavior should be to not have nicknames in other articles unless there is a really good reason to include the nickname. 2005 19:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

American bias
I've started trying to add/expand articles about brick & mortar poker rooms, such as Button (poker) and Poker dealer. I have played in casinos all over the USA and I feel well enough qualified to describe details of American poker rooms, but I should admit that I have only played once in a casino outside the USA (it was at Aviation Club de France about 4 years ago). I am therefore concerned that the descriptions of customs and procedures I am adding may have some American bias. I'm hereby inviting any players with more experience in European or other card rooms to add or broaden the descriptions in these articles. Kymacpherson 04:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

WSOP 2006
Is the plan for the 2006 WSOP the same as last year, or should we make another article with results (final table & pros in top 27) with number of people in event, Prize pool, ect.? EXAMPLE: on my user page--> --Code1390 03:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see that additions follow the consistency section a couple inches down on this page. 2005 09:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Gambling
The majority of the Wikipedia gambling articles are poker ones, in large part due to the great work of contributors to this project. I have created a WikiProject Gambling to extend the stylistic consistency of the poker articles to the rest of the gambling articles, and also importantly, to make sure that other articles don't adopt a significantly different style since a large number of "gambling" articles are also "poker" articles (most obviously those dealing with companies). I don't expect the Gambling project to have as much participation (or be as fun) as the poker one, but it would be great if contributors here joined up there if only just to monitor related discussions, observe dedicated spammers, and that sort of thing. Ideally the Poker project would have been a child of a gambling one, but this is sort of the other way around. I just want to be sure there is a place general discussions can take place, style guidelines can be discussed and laid out and so on. 2005 01:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Consistency
The synthesis of the below discussion can now be found at Manual of Style (poker-related articles) or the shortcut WP:MSP

The articles are inconsistent on a few points of style. I'd like to suggest some standards. Opinions please.--Toms2866 04:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Card names and suits should not be treated as proper nouns (i.e., should not be capitalized). For example, "the ace of spades" or "a pair of deuces" or "three jacks".
 * "Texas hold 'em", "Omaha hold 'em" should not capitalize "hold 'em" and should include a space between the "hold" and the "'em".
 * To avoid 2nd person, articles should refer to a "player" and "his opponents" when discussing gameplay or strategy. Avoid "another player" and instead say "an opponent". That way, in a particular context, "player" becomes the place holder for a single player.
 * Examples that refer to players by name should use "Alice", "Bob", "Carol" and "David". ABCD, two males, two females.
 * Where possible, articles should use the WP:FOOTNOTE style for references. Articles using footnote-style references should include a section titled Notes. If additional references were used that are not referenced in the notes, they should be listed in the References section.
 * The following sequence should be used for ending topics: See also, Notes, References, External links.
 * Every article should have a link to the Poker article somewhere.
 * Players should be referenced by their names sans nickname. Nicknames are given in the player articles. Exceptions would be cases where the player normally goes by their nickname, such as Chip Reese or Scotty Nguyen. A good rule of thumb is to use the name that is the article title for the player.
 * Hyphens should not be used in "all in" unless used as an adjective (e.g., "Alice went all in", "...against an all-in opponent...").
 * Hyphens should be used in "no-limit", "pot-limit", "fixed-limit", "spread-limit" when used as an adjective (e.g., "no-limit Texas hold 'em" or "pot-limit Omaha").
 * Hyphens should be used in "bring-in", "check-raise", "high-low split", "semi-bluff", "rolled-up", "buy-in".
 * Hyphens should not be used in "slow play".
 * Standard terms should be used instead of jargon. For example, "four of a kind" instead of "quads", "three of a kind" instead of "trips", "inside straight draw" instead of "gutshot straight draw". The titles in Rank of hands (poker) should be used as the list of standard names for poker hands.


 * Excellent. One note though, the wiki article is Ace of Spades, which has a redirect from "Ace of spades". It would a good idea to now reverse the redirect. I would also add another item to the above list... in general wiki articles should only be linked once in any article, for example, a player name should only be linked once; in some rare cases, like a See also at the end of an article, a major rrelated article could be wikied a second time for emphasis and clarity. 2005 07:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks great, I'm on board for all of it. Its incredibly complete, I'm glad you did it! The only think I would like to add, is that the use of "her opponent" is acceptable in addition to "his opponent".   I don't think you meant to exclude it, but people are kinda weird when there are standards in place. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The standardizations are a great idea. In regards to "his opponent" etc, I've had to use this construct a lot.  As much as I dislike the gender partiality, I don't know of a better alternative.  "His/her opponent" is too cumbersome; "her opponent" might be outright confusing if mixed in the same article with "his opponent"; "their opponent",  which I've unfortunately seen used here occasionally, is of course grammatically incorrect; and I don't think "one's opponent" works, once the central subject has been introduced as "the player". &mdash;Kymacpherson 19:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously I agree one should not write something that is confusing. But "her opponent" can be used in a non-confusing way.  As such, I would like the official standards to explicitly allow it.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I refined the hyphenation rules. See hyphen for details. Also consistent with Poker dictionary on Mike Caro's site.


 * Once these are agreed on we can probably get a bot to fix the articles for us. Once folks feel like we've reached a consensus on these issues, let me know and I'll talk to User:Bluemoose about getting User:Bluebot to do some corrections for us.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There seems to be no objection to the bot idea, but no real excitement either. I started a page, WikiProject Poker/Standardization changes, to list changes.  If your interested add things to this page. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:World Series of Poker raises the issues of flags attached to tournament results. I can see no reason to ever include them, except in "team" events. Poker is not nationalistic, includes a huge percentage of people who are stateless, multiple citizens, or refugees from a hostile land (perhaps a country even offensive to the player). Player articles can discuss in appropriate depth the person's nationality or circumstances. Flags, like nicknames, should not be put on tournament articles. 2005 23:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That said, some non-team poker tournaments such as the European Poker Tour show national flags on-screen for each player whenever they are involved in a hand. Essexmutant 23:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see that as a reasonable exception, although those of us who don't see the program would be at a loss for even what the right or consistent flag would be. In general I would say not to include them in non-Team tournaments, with exceptions when it is clearly part of the presentation or marketing of the tournament, like it would be in the EPT. 2005 02:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think flags should go from all such articles. For example J. C. Tran was born in 1977, in VN, so ergo with the "birth country" logic, should have the post-1975 star flag wherever he appears. [] proves otherwise.  He apparently lives in the US now.  What about a Taiwan player?  --M a s 23:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Another area I have seen some inconsistency is the markup of a word or term that is being defined as part of the article text. Betting (poker) in particular uses boldface and italics liberally (and interchangeably) when terms are introduced and subsequently defined. Based on my interpretation of Manual of Style and Technical terms and definitions, boldface can be used in this context, but should probably be used more sparingly than it is now; and italics are not appropriate in this context&mdash;they should only be used to make a use-mention distinction. &mdash;Kymacpherson 22:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Danny Nguyen
I'm thinking about putting this on AFD. It's a hopelessly POV article, and also bare in mind it was originally created by a suspected sockpuppet (see User:MaoJin.) Any thoughts? Essexmutant 17:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It certainly needs work if nothing else. The dancer part is the worst part though. Nguyen merits an article more than some of the marginal players who have articles, so I'd suggest deleting the dancer part, and making a short factual stub about the poker player and the WPT.  At some future point a disambig page could be made if a real dancer by this name actually exists and merits an article. 2005 20:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up. 2005 23:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia versus poker-specific wiki
For about 1.5 years I've been involved in setting up a poker-specific wiki. I'm eager to hear ideas of how we can avoid duplication of effort. Regards, PhilipR 17:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Since both sites licensed under the GFDL, material can be copied from one to the other without problem (so long as the material that is copied is attributed correctly). I think this should make for some good cooperation. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's true, and we can even envision bots to synch content or whatever.  But in view of the don't repeat yourself principle, it seems to me that we'd do better to agree what is and isn't Wikipedia-scoped subject matter, merge the content that is, link it here, and use the Wikia site for whatever is deemed out of scope for Wikipedia (which was part of our statement of scope when we applied for the site).   I'm hoping we can get this dialogue going.   I appreciate your willingness not to descend into the dogmatism exhibited by your colleague.   Regards, PhilipR 09:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need or value in a poker specific wiki, so to avoid duplication I'd encourage you to contribute to the wikipedia and specifically the poker project. Everything here could be copied to the poker.wikia, but again I don't really see the point or value of just duplicating (assuming we continue to keep the wikipedia poker content organized and cared for). 2005 22:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ooh, I don't know. There are somethings that would be nice to have somewhere on the web, that wouldn't be appropriate for wikipedia.  For instance, this page shouldn't be here (on wikipedia), but it's not bad to have somewhere.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course that link spam page shouldn't exist on wikipedia. The pokerwikia is a link spam blackhole. All that junk is inappropriate here so there is no duplication issue.  The wikipedia articles are available to be used by anybody including pokerwikia. If in addition all kinds of spam is on a site, that isn't a wikipedia issue, nor does it reflect on duplication.  Anyone can take our articles and add spam to them. :)  2005 23:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * One more observation about your supreme arrogance: I note that you've just assumed that any flow of information would have to be from Wikipedia to another site -- to you it's apparently not even conceivable that a small community of committed poker fans could possibly produce anything worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.  Hopefully you're just a minority of one, but if not then perhaps it's best that I wish you luck and we go our separate ways.   Cheers, PhilipR 19:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "I don't see the need or value in a poker specific wiki, so to avoid duplication I'd encourage you to contribute to the wikipedia and specifically the poker project. " -- So for example, a list of every game spread at Foxwoods would be an appropriate, encyclopedic addition to Wikipedia?   A detailed discussion of bet sizing on the river in NLHE would be appropriately encyclopedic?     Or are they just devoid of value because you deem them so?


 * In general my belief is that Wikipedia tends to expand into all sorts of unencyclopedic subject matter that people feel like pursuing, simply because people like a certain topic and pursue it as far as it interests them.  Somewhere I missed the memo that Wikipedia was aiming to be the sole repository of all human knowledge.   Not every book on my shelf is an encyclopedia.


 * Regardless, I asked for feedback, and if one piece of feedback on offer is, "Just give up what you've built and come support what we've built instead," then I suppose I got what I asked for.  That's certainly one possible strategy in how to allocate my time.   However, dogmatism like you've exhibited so far ("linkspam", "junk", "don't see the need or value") will minimize the probability that the two of us will end up collaborating on anything productive. AFAICT your POV seems to be, If you find it useful you'll put it on Wikipedia therefore if it's not on Wikipedia then it must not be useful.   Suit yourself, but I'd suggest you learn more effective means of recruiting others to your cause than insulting their work -- if indeed such considerations matter to you.   Regards, PhilipR 09:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has guidelines, not "dogmatism". One is to not be rude in communicating with others, so when posting messages here, please try behave a little nicer.  I said I don't see the need for the pokerwikia, and apparently you think that is not an acceptable opinion to have.  There certainly are things in the pokerwikia that are valuable, but there is also pure linkspam that would never be appropriate in wikipedia.  You are free to do what you want anywhere else if you want, but to your original question, these are not sister projects.  If you want to use Wikipedia content, you can.  But there is no "duplication of effort" concerns here since you are doing an entirely different thing that is not related to this project or Wikipedia in any way, aside from both existing under a Free Documentation License.  Do what you want.  Use anything here you want.  If there is something there that could be incorporated into an article here, then that's good too.  However, I see no need for you to create encyclopedic articles there, since you can just refer to encyclopedic articles here.  If you want to create articles there that are link lists for some commercial website, fine for you, but any effort you put in that will never be duplicated here because we don't make such lists. 2005 21:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)