Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 7

Amir Vahedi dead in Las Vegas?
Greetings all. Reports are starting to be posted on forums and on Mark Seif's website that Amir Vahedi passed away on January 8th due to complications from his diabetes. I have personally been able to find anything verifiable as of yet. Project members may want to watch his page for the time being. -Pparazorback (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. Hazir (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark Sief may be a known commodity, but until his death is reported by a reliable source, we cannot include it.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above should have read "I have personally NOT been able to find anything verifiable", as can be shown by ending the sentence with "as of yet". I was letting the project know at the time that there probably was going to be drive-by edits of his death while it was not yet sourced by a verifiable source.  Now that it is on Bluff, it is verified and posted as such.  I liked the guy and he'll be missed.  -Pparazorback (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Full Tilt Poker PR
There's a new user who is [rather obviously] an employee of FTP or one of their affiliates. The same user also created a separate article for Full Tilt Poker Academy which I have redirected. I am on the road at the moment so don't have the time to deal with the barrage of edits. Please keep an eye out. Hazir (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SitNGo Wizard
Feel free to comment at Articles for deletion/SitNGo Wizard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Badger
Please feel free to comment at Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Badger. Rray (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shirley_Rosario
Please feel free to comment at Articles_for_deletion/Shirley_Rosario. Rray (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erin_Ness
Please feel free to comment Articles_for_deletion/Erin_Ness_%282nd_nomination%29 Rray (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

unreferenced BLPs
For those who don't know, there is a huge bruhaha developing over unreferenced BLPs... there are some who want to delete them on sight. Here is a list of poker related BLPs that we need to work on or send to AFD if its not worth keeping. If you fix one, please strike it out so that we know that it was done or send it to AFD and let us know.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

AFD Noms

 * Articles for deletion/Warwick Dunnett

WSOPE Featured Topic
Just so you know, this may be delisted.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying to head-off edit warring
I could use some un-biased editors to have a look at SitNGo Wizard, Poker and Stud poker. User:TonyTheTiger has been warned on the AfD page to disengage from editing the article do to his WP:COI as he was compensated to create the article. There appears to be consensus on that page that the article reads like an advertisement and that it should be deleted - yet TonyTheTiger is making no efforts to improve the article, instead he is reverting all of the good faith edits of other editors over and over and removing tags such as the 'issues' tag while making other edits (and not noting tag removal). He has also been warned not to revert the edits of other editors on that article until the AfD is completed, yet he continues to do so. Unfortunately it appears at this point as if me and him are the only two editors who care enough to make content changes and I do not want to engage in an edit war - so I would appreciate if one or more editors can have a look at [this version] that I would like preserved and the current version TonyTheTiger is insisting upon and decided which is better - or make changes of your own.

Regarding Poker and Stud poker a self-published blog is being used as a citation and I removed it. User:2005 instantly reverted my edits, as User:2005 does with the majority of my edits despite being warned to disengage from edit warring with me. I have just reverted the changes back but I am certain User:2005 will simply change my edits back again with a snide remark immediately. I do not want to take part in an edit war so I would like a ruling from another editor or editors on whether this should be included.

I am not canvassing, I am asking for people to objectively analyze these two articles. Whether you agree with User:2005, User:TonyTheTiger or myself is fine - I just want an outside opinion to avoid an edit war. Thank you DegenFarang (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You have been warned again and again and again about your tendatious editing, wikihounding and rejection of all Wikipedia policies. Enough is enough. 2005 (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This is me taking a new approach. I am making every effort not to get involved in an edit war. That I have been warned for edit warring does not mean I can never disagree with another editor. And the fact that you quote this, this and that along with this, while completely ignoring my argument, every single time you attempt to prove me wrong, reveals much more about you than it does about me. You are committing multiple logical fallacies each time you do it and I could do the exact same thing to you as you are constantly warned about all sorts of things as well. Analyze the argument not the person making it. DegenFarang (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Rakeback Article?
I put my thoughts on this here. If this has been discussed if somebody can please point me to the previous discussion. Otherwise I'd like to get started on making rakeback its own article. It is certainly notable - an entire industry has sprouted up around rakeback the last few years. And if you do a Google search for rakeback (although I know this alone is not enough for inclusion) all you find are a bunch of sites offering it, who all offer very biased definitions of the pro's and con's etc. If the Wikipedia page were ranked high in Google (as I imagine it eventually would be) it would be doing a great service to all of those searching for information on what exactly rakeback is, the reasons for getting it, possibly what networks allow and and which don't etc. Feedback appreciated. Thanks. DegenFarang (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone would be opposed to an article on rakeback in principle, but the practicality of it is another thing. Without reliable sources, an article might be impossible to write. Rray (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am certain there are Reliable sources so long as things like CardPlayer, PokerNews, Bluff etc are considered reliable and from a cursory glance at the poker articles, clearly they are. I assumed this idea had been discussed before and decided against for some reason. I'll get started on the article in the next day or two unless anybody gives me a good reason why I shouldn't (RS's aside, obviously they are needed). DegenFarang (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice job on the article. Gary King  ( talk ) 03:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
 * List of cleanup articles for your project

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

Ikip 02:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Rakeback
Please help expand rakeback. I don't have enough time to work on it now but an editor is suggesting he may take it to AfD and it can be a great article just with information from the sources given. DegenFarang (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That editor is me. There is nothing in that article that couldn't be neatly written in a couple of lines and added to the glossary section. The article only exists as a magnet for affiliate spam. It will never be substantive enough to justify a stand-alone article because there just isn't that much to say about rakeback. A random list of poker sites that offer rakeback and an inane fact about Bodog doesn't cut the mustard.Hazir (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hazir. How much encyclopedic information can you write about the concept of a rebate programs as it relates to online poker? Very little, I fear. Rray (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have nominated this article for deletion. Please share your thoughts [here]. Regards Hazir (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Isildur1
This article has been nominated for deletion. Please comment if you have a chance. Hazir (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot
Okip  00:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

PokerStars Caribbean Poker Adventure
The PCA has been moved again from the EPT to the North American Poker Tour. With that in mind, and knowing that the PCA is getting aired, should article construction for the NAPT be underway or is only the PCA going to be the sole aired NAPT event? –– Lid(Talk) 13:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Cole South article - feedback wanted
Hi, this is my first Wikipedia entry about poker player Cole South and I am still getting used to the code and policies. The article was nominated for deletion, any feedback or advice would be greatly appreciated. Yogaflame (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that he is sufficiently notable that the article should be kept. I have therefore removed the CSD tag. Nice job on the article; I'm somewhat surprised that Cole hasn't had an article until now. He's one of the most successful online cash game players, he just doesn't get nearly as much exposure as the other guys. Gary King  ( talk ) 03:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is definitely not a CSD candidate and probably would survive a true AFD nom. The one piece of advice I would make would be to expand the lead.  Explicitly state what makes Cole notable/important/significant/whatever.  Wikipedians can be narrow minded, if their claim to notability isn't apparent in the lead, some will assume it doesn't exist.  EG reading hte lead, it looks like he is nothing more than a professional poker player---which isn't enough to be kept.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is he's an online cash game player so it's harder to get information about his successes. Because of this, it's way easier to prove notability for tournament players. I was thinking this when I went looking for him on Hendon Mob when I first learned of the CSD; turns out he ranks in the thousands overall, and at best, he's ranked 500th or so in WSOP winnings. Not really impressive. Gary King  ( talk ) 05:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Padraig Parkinson
Article is up for deletion--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Liz Lieu
Nominating for deletion Articles for deletion/Liz Lieu--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Balloonman, I hope you don't make any more such nominations based on the flawed criteria you are using. It doesn't matter in the least what the results, or recent results, are for these people.  What matters is coverage in relaible third party sources.  A person could be notable for being a terrible player, or an obnoxious one, or several other reasons.  If they get coverage from multiple sources that s not about a single event, they can have articles, regardless of whether they ever win anything. 2005 (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the articles do not meet standards and are people who do not have sufficeint coverage beyond mere mention or basic bio's, then yes. You can claim that Liz is notable, but looking at the first five pages of links for her failed to convince me... all of them were short bio's which show existence or are non reliable sources (facebook, myspace, twitter, blogs, etc.)  Essays on poker cites isn't necessarily enough, you are lowering the expectation to a level that a local politician would warrant inclusion.  Existing as a poker player is not proof of notability.  The best defense is to show notability and provide the sources, otherwise they are vulnerable.  Don't just claim it, demonstrate it.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously existence as a player does not prove notability, so there is no point in mentioning that. What does matter is coverage, which is easy to find: Cardplayer, Poker Verdict, Pokerplayer newspaper for starters, plus many other lower level sites like the ones currently in the external links of her article.  So again, the citeria is coverage, not results or existence. 2005 (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then start helping to improve the articles and ADD sources to the BLP's rather than constantly remove them! In case you are unaware, there is a strong movement to delete BLP's simply because they are lacking sources... and your refusal to A) help add sources and B) remove sources that have been added.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What on earth? I've added more sources to player BLPs than anyone except maybe one or two people, and I don't "constantly" remove them.  Those are simply absurd assertions.  2005 (talk)

4-color deck with the new skin
FYI for anyone using a 4-color deck on Wikipedia, the name of the new skin is Vector, so you need to copy the contents of Special:MyPage/monobook.css to Special:MyPage/vector.css to make it work again. -PatrikR (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Online winning totals
Hi all, I've noticed an obsession with online wins/losses has started to creep into poker articles, e.g. Isildur1 and Tom Dwan. Given the massive swings that occur in online poker, I think we need a better solution going forward than to have anon edits every other week whenever someone strings together a few winning sessions. What do other members of the Poker Project think about this? Hazir (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of maybe only mentioning pots that exceed one million dollars, or daily profits/losses of one million dollars up/down, but that wouldn't work for all players since not all cash game players play that high. Maybe something similar based on their total winnings, like if the player has won $10 million online lifetime, then any pot or session worth 10% or more of that (so one million or more) could be mentioned? I guess that seems pretty complicated, though. Gary King  ( talk ) 21:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We should avoid all stuff like this for several core wiki reasons like verifiability, but also any cumulative online winnings will be wrong, as basically every notable player has played on multiple sites, in many cases purely anonymously. And these dubiously reliable tracking sites have only been around a few years, so we would never be presenting accurate information.  I'd like to see a consensus to not use any online ring game stats, but at the least we should not encourage them.  The same for cumulative online tournaments stats.  Stats involving one event, like winning a WCOOP event, are fine since these results are easily verifiable. 2005 (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

ESPN's "power rankings"
I've noticed that ESPN's power rankings have started being mentioned in poker articles. What do people make of these rankings, are they authoritative, should they be routinely mentioned in articles whenever it's appropriate to discuss the relative 'place' of a player, should this be avoided all together? One thing is for sure, we should be edit any mention of the ranking to include "Bluff Magazine" as it's a joint venture. Hazir (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to mention those rankings. I think you linked to the wrong page, however; it should be this I think? Gary King  ( talk ) 21:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Subjective rankings from a reliable source can be included, but like Cardplayer's rankings these are just the opinion of some outfit and I wouldn't normally mention it -- certainly not in a "currently ranked #37" kind of way which will always be obsolete. These rankings make the most sense in an historical sense, as in "was ranked #3 for 2009 by Bluff/ESPN".  This way we won't have a bunch of bad information in articles. 2005 (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Importance"
I'm not too sure if this is the right place to be raising such a complaint, or whether "importance" is something that I do not understand, but I can't help but disagree with some certain articles for their scale of importance. The most glaring examples are Praz Bansi as "high importance" and Johnny Chan as "low importance." I'm very interested in following these scales of importance and discussing whether certain articles should be changed. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the assessment, then just change it. There are just so many articles under this WikiProject and not enough active members that it isn't worth it to have a discussion on the assessment of specific articles. I think that Johnny Chan should be probably High- and Praz- as Low-. Gary King  ( talk ) 16:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly agree with you. If worst comes to worst I guess a discussion could be put on the individual's talk page. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the fly by night editors that have a low knowledge of poker rate articles based on overall importance, and no relevance to field being assessed and end up fouling up the assessment, Chan would be low importance if say compared to Thomas Jefferson but certainly not in the field of poker. ▪◦▪ ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 22:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably the biggest problem is that "importance" is a subjective thing... but that's still no excuse for some of the categorisations that I've noticed. During the next few days I'll be looking through all of them and trying to work out some kind of loose way of determining where they should be, based on success, activeness, media attention and contributions to Poker... at least for the BLPs. Any complaints can be sent to my or the individuals talk page. Is that okay with you guys? JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's ok by me and Thank you for noticing the problem ▪◦▪ ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 22:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for pursuing this. Also, see this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poker/Archive/2009. Gary King  ( talk ) 00:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was looking for something like that earlier. Very useful; thank you! I'm not sure I agree 100% with it, but it's certainly a strong guideline. I'll be going through the articles at some point tomorrow, and like I said before I'll certainly welcome discussions if there are any disagreements. Thanks again! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for consideration
I would like members of this project to consider adding a field for "Primary sponsor" to the Template:Infobox poker player. It seems to me sponsorship is appropriate for inclusion, helps establish notability, and is otherwise useful. I am interested as to particular views from this projects members. Thanks and kind regards.  My 76 Strat  19:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not be opposed to such an addition.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a very interesting addition! I've no objections unless somebody else brings up a valid point. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we are in a position to decide "primary". Infoboxes should only be used for something that is for sure, no doubt a clear fact.  A 15th place finish is not a 14th or a 13th.  On the other hand, multiple sponsorships sometimes need explanation.  In some cases players have their own businesses, often these are partnerships, while also having a deal with a poker room.  Sometimes these poker room deals trump everything, like with Chris Ferguson, but other times there are people who are merely "friends of Full Tilt" where "sponsorship" is trivial and other deals may be more important.  Bottom line, this is better off explained in every players' article, and not oversimplified into an infobox.  (Also, all sponsorships should be referenced, and references are better suited for article text.) 2005 (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think 2005 makes some excellent points there.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the field should be added. I was thinking about issues similar to 2005's. Gary King  ( talk  ·  scripts )  02:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with user:2005 as well. therefore the request seems rather mute to me now.  My 76 Strat  04:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove all (non-official titles)
It may be best to remove all the non-official titles from the info-boxes, not those titles that are recognize as official by the body that runs the tournament, such as the WSOP ladies event which is an open event, that's unofficially closed to men, nevertheless it is recognized as an official bracelet title by the WSOP, as is the senior event. Winners of a Non-bracelet events at the WSOP event can be mention in the article. As far as the WPT the pure winner takes all non-title invites also should be remove Bad boys of poker, Battle of Champions etc, these are six person only invites with a winner takes all prize of 25k so you made the FT just on the invite, the WPT Invitational is also a closed event however is an official title of the WPT, such as the one Phil Laak won that had a 196 entries but more importantly was an official title of the WPT which can be seen from his official stats, Tony G however did not win a title even though he was the winner of WPT Bad Boys Of Poker II, as can be seen from his stats that list 0 titles. the same is true with Jennifer Tilly with 0 titles even though she won the WPT Ladies Night tournament title, So we go by a tournament titles that's officially recognized by those bodies be they closed or not.▪◦▪ ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 03:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Beating five people in a made for TV event is barely even notable for an article, let alone creating confusion in infoboxes.  All special wins or titles or accomplishments can be listed in the body of the article, so I agree to remove all non-official titles. 2005 (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that removing the parenthesis from the infoboxes is the simplest way of stopping the confusion they cause. Different titles may be seen differently by different people and some people also consider titles as "ITM finishes" or "Final tables." It's inconsistent, not informative and needs to be changed. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with the positions stated here. However, I guess my overarching concern would be importance and notability of what is included in the information box including the "specialty events" (i.e., Tournament of Champions). I agree we need consistency and I don't believe the information should be misleading (no matter if it is unintentional). As to the use of parenthese, I agree with JaeDyWolf that they should be eliminated. I think their use makes the poker player pages seem "cliquish". I guess we need to look to create guidelines for the info box and perhaps the main text as to what is noteworthy regarding tournament wins, finishes, etc. Also, in such guidelines I think we need to cognizant of major online poker events (i.e., WCOOP).Kanapapiki (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever is decided here (and any future such issues) should be added to the Manual of Style for poker articles. 2005 (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If the specialty events are to be kept in the information box, there's another interesting conflict in that all of the information already in the infobox is quantitative (such as number of bracelets or number of WPT titles.) JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that this discussion has been up for a while, and it looks to me that everybody agrees with removing the parenthesis inside infoboxes. Shall that go ahead? JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

...I'll begin removing them. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The HendonMob at Reliable Sources
Just to let those who might be interested, a question revolving around the HendonMob being a reliable source has been raised at here.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Poker articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Poker articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Why do we have Yevgeny Kafelnikov listed as part of the Poker Project? The entirety of the article that deals with him is, "Since retiring, Kafelnikov has had a few impressive finishes at the 2005 World Series of Poker." If we are going to tag him as part of the project, then we should also start tagging tobey maquire, Ray Ramano, and a whole slew of other people who play poker.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that he should be on there. The last event he DID play was over five years ago; maybe a nice example of a sportsman-turned-Poker player would be Teddy Sheringham? He's not on Wikiproject Poker but he has been appearing on Poker TV programs and came 14th in the 2009 WSOPE Main Event. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think we should "claim" every person who plays poker or in a poker event. While there might be some notable exceptions, my criteria for inclusion as part of the Poker Project would be A) Is the person notable enough in the poker field to warrant an article?  B) If the person isn't notable enough to merit an article as a poker player, but does merit one for other reasons, have they done something significant in the field?  Playing in a WSOP or even making the money doesn't cut it.  (NOTE: doing something signicant does not mean winning a bracelet or WPT tour.  It could be off the felt activities as well.)  As this article only has a single sentence and he has only played 9 events (in a 9 month period 5 years ago) I'm going to remove it.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think a nice example of a person who is a part of the Poker Project is JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone is listed in one of the poker player categories why wouldn't they be listed as part of the poker project? This isn't subjective.  If an article is in a poker category, it should be tagged for the Poker project. There is no reason to ever be subjective in the project tagging.  The issue should only come up if someone meets the category threshold or not. (In other words, there are two choices.  Either remove him from the Russian poker players category and remove the template; or leave him in the category and leave the template.) 2005 (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think he warrants being included in one of the poker categories. The tie to Poker is tenuous at best.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly fine with that. Just remove them both, not just one. 2005 (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Similar note, there is a category for deletion article for a category made by someone outside the Poker Project, Category:Jewish Poker Players. One problem with that category as currently set up is it lists celebrities who happen to play poker, while the poker players category does not allow anyone included that does meet the threshold "This category is for well known poker players, including those that win major tournaments, notable authors of poker-related books, those in the Poker Hall of Fame (or similar halls of fame) for poker playing, and those that are featured frequently on televised poker shows (not "celebrity" poker shows)."  We need to be sure that if the category is kept, it is purged of the celebrities so it is consistent with the rest of the poker player categories. 2005 (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Rmv'd cats from this guy and !voted in the XfD.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Poker tournament
I was looking to edit the page on poker tournaments, but didn't know if what I wanted to add was appropriate or not. The page talks very in depth about live poker tournaments in person, but does not cover too much information about online tournaments and the new variations that are appearing on different online poker websites. A few types that I know exist online are cashout, matrix, and bounty tournaments (the bounty tournaments exist live as well). Most of this information would fall under Playing Format. There are also some major online tournaments that could be added to the Major Tournaments portion of the article, such as Full Tilt's FTOPS (I know pokerstars has a similar series as well). Thoughts, ideas, questions, let me know with a reply. AlanDaTalon6789 (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea, it could be expanded, with a section covering the the online card room tournaments, the section can also have links to Online poker, WCOOP, Spring Championship of Online Poker, World Cup of Poker, FTOPS, if it is expanded be sure to reference using reliable source such as pokernews.com cardplayer.com bluffmagizine.com and others that uses professional writers that will list the author's byline.
 * this is a great reference generator, An arbitrary website is the best template in most cases. ▪◦▪ ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 20:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links, they're real helpful in getting an idea of what I can add and how I can organize it. I'm doing this for a technical writing class, so if you have any general tips on editing wiki that may be helpful for a new user that would be great. AlanDaTalon6789 (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Really some of the best you will find are the links on the welcome message on your talk page, WP:TIPS and Manual of Style are a good start, see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker (guidelines) for poker articles specifically. ▪◦▪ ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 09:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion
If anyone is interested, there is a discussion on renaming betting (poker). Vegaswikian (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Duhamel's online ID
Jonathan Duhamel is one of the few infoboxes that does not give the online ID or nickname of the player. We should have this info.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So far I've only seen rumors on Duhamel's online screen ID,  neither which can be said to be reliable even if many times they are right. ▪◦▪  ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 04:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On a side note Peter Eastgate is Auctioning off his 2008 WSOP Championship bracelet, donating all the money to UNICEF.▪◦▪ ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 07:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Requesting comments on the usability of Bracelet Winners templates
I'd like to request people's opinions regarding the following templates:


 * Template:1970s WSOP Bracelet Winners
 * Template:1980s WSOP Bracelet Winners
 * Template:1990s WSOP Bracelet Winners
 * Template:2000s WSOP Bracelet Winners

They have recently been nominated for deletion at Templates_for_discussion because they are currently unused, so I figured this would be as good an opportunity as any to find out just whether they have a chance of being at all useful, informative or entertaining for readers.

Any format critiques would be welcome, too, as long as they're believed to help them remain on Wikipedia. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that this is a good format. I would like to see this added to the bio pages.  Since you have done this by decade, it will not cause too much clutter and it is highly informative.  You will need a new template for the 2010s.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply! I'm more than happy to do the one for 2010, too. I'm still thinking of a couple of format changes, but those can be sorted out later. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems like the templates look good, and have an appropriate range. Seems like a good idea, although if there is some guideline I don't know about that says the 2000s template is too big, I'd defer though.  I could also see doing decade templates up to 2000 and then doing yearly ones, but I don't have a strong opinion about it.  2005 (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Doing yearly ones will lead to clutter for people who win one every other year or so. Just keep doing decades.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)