Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 11

Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at ~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man ) 05:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

WSOP template
I am thinking of making a WSOP template, but I'd like your input on whether or not we should make one, as well as how we should organize the template. Lets start off with what I made:

--  K.Annoyomous  (talk)   21:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this a WSOP-specific template, or more of a template for all large-scale live tournaments? Mtnracer (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a separate major poker tournaments template. 2005 (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments on adding world rank on player's profiles
Hello Wikiproject. I am looking for feedback regarding the addition of a world rank on player's wikipedia profile pages. It is established amongst the players that the authority in live poker rankings is the Global Poker Index, actin like the ATP for tennis or the PGA for Golf. It would be an interesting addition to have an updated world rank for each player, based on the GPI. You can see the current rankings on http://www.globalpokerindex.com/rankings. This would concern mostly professional poker players on wikipedia suck as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Negreanu or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_hellmuth for instance. Please let me know what you think, and we can start from there! Thank you. --Randomsson (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a good idea. GPI isn't close to the same thing as the PGA or ATP rankings.  It's a very subjective third party, commercial outfit.  We should avoid anything this subjective, especially any private entity that isn't 100% "just the facts".  2005 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Allow me to kindly disagree. If you ask most pros, they will take the GPI as a reference (as well as agents, and poker rooms). The rankings are used in USA today next to the NBA and NHL (link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_poker_index_rankings_in_USA_today_(scan).png ). They are the official rankings of the main 3 tours in the world (WSOP, WPT, and EPT). Regarding the "commercial" term, I have to add that PGA and ATP do have to make some money somehow ,as well as GPI.
 * They own The Hendon Mob poker database, the biggest database in the world, therefore using all results for all tournaments in the world
 * Finally, the formula is patent pending. The formula is considered fair, according to everybody in the industry, and counts any tourney from $1 to the biggest buy-ins, making sure that high rollers do not count for too much in the total (which is already a lot more than other systems).


 * I think it would be interesting for readers to find some up-to-date information on who is the best poker player at the moment, and have this result crawled by wiki bots.


 * Would be nice to also get some other views. Thank you 2005 for your comment. happy to share with you again. Randomsson (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hardly anyone pays attention or cares about these rankings, especially any pros who are not in the top ten. No news story say GPI 37th or whatever.  It's a flawed ranking system put out by a commercial outfit, and not encyclopedic in any sense.  Saying the formula is "fair" while brushing aside other formulas that weight differently already shows why this particular formula doesn't belong here.  It's purely subjective to call their ranking "fair" and somebody else's flawed.  We generally have the factual-not-subjective Hendon Mob data on all articles now from this company.  If people want to see more, we link to the Mob pages which then have the subjective ranking. (As for "up-to-date information on who is the best poker player at the moment", that is just plain wrong.  The rankings do not show that, which is another reason such deceptive stuff is worse than clutter, it's directly unhelpful.) 2005 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be an abolute nightmare to maintain this? A feature of the GPI is that the points from each individual tournament depreciate on a quarterly basis. I remember reading weekly updates on the GPI and much of the fluctuations between placements were due to tournaments falling into a lower-scoring time bracket as opposed to a player finishing ITM.

Anybody is welcome to correct me on this, but I believe one of the reasons the all-time tournament earnings are tracked on Wikipedia is because it's an easy value to put in the format of "As of a certain month, all-time earnings exceed a certain value." It's still an accurate statement and needn't be updated relatively often.

I love the concept and execution of the GPI (despite a couple of flaws I personally believe it has) and agree that it more accurately describes a poker player's skill over time, but the sheer number of edits required to be able to maintain its accuracy and keep it up-to-date would make it infeasible on Wikipedia. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe a bot would be able to crawl this data without much trouble, and without anyone needed to update any page all the time. Randomsson (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone else has an advice on this ? thank you :) Randomsson (talk) 18:05, 03 June 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of players refer to the GPI for their rankings. Daniel Negreanu often mentions the GPI in his comments, Jason Mercier has GPI #1 on the very front page of his website. Aaron Massey shared with everyone when he made the Top 100 and players such as Ana Marquez and Dermot Blain have said it proudly when they were ranked #1 in their respective Nations. With basically every player who cashes in a tournament receiving a ranking, they cater not only to the top level pros, but to amateurs and weekend grinders as well BubbaW (talk) 14:31, 06 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course those ranked #1 or close to it use the ranking to promote themselves. This just reiterates why a proprietary. commercial ranking system has no place in an encyclopedia.  It should be obvious that Wikipedia should never do anything to legitimize one commercial entity over others, like saying Pepsi is better than Coke.  Additionally just today GPI announced a further commercialization of its rankings, articles here and here.  Hopefully no one thinks we should serve as a promotional tool for this company's events.  The proper way to address this, or anything where there are multiple commercial enterprises involved or potentially involved, is to simply add content to individual articles when it merits it, with proper sourcing.  A player being ranked #1 by some outfit will normally be notable.  A player being ranked #759 is not remotely notable.  2005 (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Something to add in - I think the question here isn't commercial vs. non-commercial because its not. Wiki does use sports organizations as designated ranking officiators in its articles and its not a problem. NBA, MLB, etc. - even though these are all FOR profit entities. That being said, they are still valid as over-lying ranking authorities because - like GPI - the ranking end of their organization is objective vs. subjective - which is the bar for propriety vs. impropriety of inclusion in Wikipedia. Team ranks and player statistics - in per se, the NBA, are objective & independent of the NBA's commercially driven motivations. This is to say - LeBron James' cross-season stats and the Heat's win-loss record isn't affected by how much money their fan base generates, its only performance. GPI is the exact same way. Yes - its promotion of top players & other commercial ventures aren't by any means something that's objective, but their actual RANKINGS are. Hence it's appropriate to include in an encyclopedia. Top poker players' GPI rankings are SOLELY determined by their performance - as are everyone else's - saying that they are unfair because top players push these rankings is missing the point entirely because its saying that arbitrary correlation - rankings results & player endorsement of said ranking system - implies causation (player rankings are affected by their endorsement) - since this isn't the case at all. Hope this clears some of the headaches on this page up & do believe GPI is a good starting block for unifying player and game information for Poker's broader inclusion in Wikipedia. I love the game & don't see any moral or subjective stumbling blocks to relay it via GPI content. (Nonprophete (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you aren't understanding the issue. The GPI is plainly not objective.  They have criteria that weights certain tournaments over others according to their own opinions on how one thing should be valued over others.  It's their random preference, and that has no place in an encyclopedia as a rule.  To make it more clear, why aren't you advocating Bluff's rankings?  Why not the WSOP's?  2005 (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * perfectly understanding what you are saying, but again, not seeing why ATP, PGA or similar entities are doing on wikipedia then. If would be foolish to think they are not commercial entities, and are not promoting themselves. The GPI is clearly not making money when organizing things like you've mentioned, but of course will benefit from it in order to generate a revenue and pay employees and the like i'm guessing. Nowadays, nobody in the poker world says "i'm ranked 10th in card player. Everybody used the GPI and The hendon mob, clearly. Not only the top 10, but players like myself, trying to merely reach a national top 100 for instance. Again, we can agree to disagree :) Randomsson (talk) 12:25, 09 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The GPI clearly is making money. These comments are starting to sound like spam now.  "nobody in the poker world" is an over the top false statement, and again highlights the problem.  The GPI's (and Cardplayer's and Bluff's) rankings are nothing like the PGA.  The comparison doesn't even make logical sense, as golfers don't pay $10,000 or $500 to enter tournaments. 2005 (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

GPI rankings Concerns
There have been a number of edits made by an IP in the last day or so adding ridiculously low GPI rankings on a number of player's articles, ranging from to. These, in my view, fall well below standards of notability and I would strongly dislike them for that even if they WERE referenced. I'm not fully against GPI rankings being mentioned when they're worthy of being mentioned, however it is still a rank which is highly subject to variation over time. Randomsson mentioned above that he believed a bot could maintain such rankings; I'm close to asserting that a bot is required. For the time being, what are everyone's opinions that GPI rankings be limited to the current top 10 players, for the sake of manageability? JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's even more ridiculous. Pascal Perrault at 70,972, and put in the second line of the article no less.  I'm inclined to revert all of these, except for anyone that is in the top 100 or was in the top 100... in other words, something notable.  There is nothing notable or interesting about these GPI rankings.  They are more spam than anything else.  They are especially unhelpful in articles about players who primarily played years ago.  Pascal Perrault for example is an EPT winner with several other accomplishments.  It is belittling and inappropriate to list that 70,000+ ranking.  The more I see these commercial rankings, the more I don't like them.  There should be no mention of them unless it is an aspect of notability... and then, they should be added down in the body of the article around where the tournament winnings amount is listed, not in the lead paragraph. 2005 (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel like simply noting those who are/were in the top 100 generates a horrendous maintenance problem; as I've said before, the GPI changes constantly and it's more difficult to accurately state a specific ranking than to describe tournament winnings exceeding a certain value. The top 10 should be manageable, IMO. In any case, we need to establish strict limits on where and when GPI rankings should be mentioned. I agree that a suitable place would be within the same paragraph as tournament winnings and should definitely not exist for those outside the top 100 but that's still overkill to me. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to never include the ranking, nor the Bluff or WSOP or Cardplayer rankings... except perhaps a top ten ranking because that isn't maintenece to say "John Doe was ranked #1 by somerankingsite in October 2017". An updating script has merit, but it would also be of negative value because someone who was ranked #6 could be #1000 a year later.  Some of the profiles haven't been updated since 2008, so un-updated #173 numbers would be bad, but updated ones would be inappropriate too for players where it becomes unnotable.  You are right, Top 100 is too much... after the WSOP main event, these numbers will move around a lot, and they move literally every day there is a tournament somewhere.  I'd say a top 10 ranking, with the date of the ranking, listed by the career earnings late in an article would be fine.  That way the ranking is notable, and there really isn't a need to update it with any lower ranking.  If someone was #6 but now is #1000, who cares about that?  The notable thing is at one time the player was #6. 2005 (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for not being on a while, but in any case... I agree with you for the most part and am finding that the format is good in al of the pages I've noticed thus far. I have a couple of minor issues with it but they're certainly not horrendous enough for me to live for the next few days knowing that they're there! Once I have a little more time again I'll propose a couple of small changes and see how everybody (which happens to just be you) feels about it. All the best! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

FLRC
nominated List of poker hands for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)