Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 8

Prahlad Friedman
Now that Prahlad Friedman has signed with UB, we might want to keep an especially close eye on this to ensure that it doesn't get vandalized. I put in a short section about how he was cheated at UB and then signed with them. I don't think we need to go into details about the controversy or the criticism he has received... just mentioning it along with his defense is probably sufficeint.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I liked how you handled it; I agree that the criticism needed mentioning and also that he has a perfect right to his defense. I don't think it could have been written better. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I felt that the issue was generating enough gossip/criticism that we had to mention it---I worked hard on getting the balance right as it wasn't easy writing a neutral synopsis of an event that is generating as much negative knee-jerk reaction as I've seen.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Badugi
It has been brought to my attention that while the poker variant badugi certainly exists, the history references on that page are not really credible. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Biographies and people in categories
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games

I am hoping to build guidelines for notability criteria for what makes someone notable in the games field i.e. Notability_(sports). Especially games players that I feel needs to have a section similar to the sports and athletes. An example of a question that has just arisen is does winning the first scrabble world championship count as just WP:Oneevent. Combined contribution issues also need defining.

The other conversation is do we want to have category inclusion criteria does a certain threshold need to be met before we add someone to Category:Chess players. Should Ben Afleck counts as a poker player?Tetron76 (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Subscription poker for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Subscription poker is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Subscription poker until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. RJaguar3 &#124; u  &#124;  t  20:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Poker researchers, analysts, authors
Besides poker players, shouldn't there be a category for persons who are mainly known (notable) for their research and analysis of the game of poker and/or authoring of poker-related texts? A great number of people come to mind. -The Gnome (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Specific content disputes
Rather than reverting any more edits, I've begun three specific discussions on three different articles' talk pages. The information and citations that were removed seem acceptable to me, but there is now a place to discuss the specifics for each of them below. I think the discussions will result in a consensus to restore the removed content. I'd be grateful for other project members' input. Rray (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rake_%28poker%29#Reference_removed.3F - Resolved
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steve_Badger#Content_removal
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shirley_Rosario (Under the discussion titled "Content removed.") - Resolved
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shirley_Rosario#Content_removed_2 - (I just added to this to the running list, since the other discussion about the edits on this page has run its course. Rray (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Until an editor who is not user2005 or a sock/meat puppet of 2005 shows an interest in these edits I think they should stand. DegenFarang (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any actual discussion of the content and the reasons for its removal from the editor who insists that it be removed. I'd be grateful if the accusations about meat-puppetry ended though. The inquiry into the meat-puppet and sock-puppet issues have already been resolved and closed, unless I'm mistaken. Rray (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2005, It has been resolved in that it was decided permanently blocking all of the sock and meat puppets wasn't necessary. Your continued use of them to create the appearance of a consensus however shows that the decision was a poor one. DegenFarang (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be grateful if we could limit our discussions to content issues. Rray (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be grateful if you could stop trying to create consensus by posting with 5+ different accounts. DegenFarang (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Does this mean that you're refusing to discuss content with me? Rray (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Non sock and meat puppet opinions
For clarity I will be reposting all views on this matter besides those of 2005's sock and meat puppets, so a more balanced perspective on where consensus might be can be gained. Please do not post in this section about the validity of the arguments or anything else, I'm simply copy/pasting DegenFarang (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm agreeing with 2005 and Rray; the majority of the sites that are being given in the eternal links aren't "spammy," and contain relevant, interesting material. I also cannot help but notice DegenFarang's apparent grudge against 2005, what with the constant harrowing regarding edits and changes to his talk page. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * poker-babes.com in particular does not seem like a reliable source to me, with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Removing those references and contentious facts sourced by them may absolutely be appropriate. I would not label DegenFarang's edits in that regard as disruptive. On the other hand, reliable source or not, using pages hosted there as external links may still be appropriate if they have useful content that the respective articles lack, as per WP:EL. Amalthea 16:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the links: if the content has value they can be used as references. The external links are unnecessary unless the information can't be easily quoted in the article, like with tournament results. 2005 cherry picked the most reputable sources but there are tons of others that few people have heard of with random domain names and next to no traffic. Allowing any site which does a 'profile' or interview with a player to have an external link on that players article is just going to invite tons of spam (and in fact it already has, and I'd like to clean it up without needing a huge edit war with 12 of 2005's sock and meat puppets to do so). DegenFarang (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * User:DegenFarang has declared that he intends to remove all "spammy" external links that are not official sites or tournament results. he has thus far removed links to Cardplayer and Pokerlistings, Pokernewsdaily, Launchpoker and others. Some of these have already been reverted, but this assertion that everything is spam except official sites and results is spam should be addressed here. This notion is absurd in my opinion, and most likely just another example of DegenFarang's tendatious editing, but I would apprecaite other editors weighing in to agree that authoratative, expert, quality websites like Cardplayer and at least a few dozen other sites are valuable links to have in articles where appropriate. 2005 (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So, DegenFarang has now been blocked for continued harassment and disruptive conduct. My patience had run out as well, and I had added a final warning to his talk page history of final warnings earlier today as a last chance. But I'm often too lenient, so I do not mind the block. Anyway. Since the only editor who previously objected to the links is no longer in a position to object, I assume people will now begin restoring the disputed content. I can accept that, but ask you nonetheless to closely check what you restore: Like I have said during the last days, DegenFarang's edits may certainly have had merit it a number of cases. I don't see that poker-babes.com, for example, is a wp:reliable source. It's a personal website, and can serve as a wp:primary source for some facts, but that's it. Overuse of questionable sources like this is what prompted this episode. Please consider this when restoring information, check whether the information is actually verifiable in reliable sources, and consider adding a reliable source instead. Amalthea 15:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 World Series of Poker Europe main event
Why is the 2011 World Series of Poker Europe main event 8-handed?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Double elimination before final table? I assume you figured it out by now since this is over two weeks old, but if you did, then please note it here since I'm just guessing. Gary King  ( talk  ·  scripts )  07:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a double elimination, Patrik Antonius bubbled the final table when he was eliminated in 9th Place, The WSOPE ME final table was officially set to be eight-handed, I don't know why, my only guess would be to distinguish it from the now famous nine-handed World Championship Main Event held in Vegas, but that's only a guess.▪◦▪ ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 14:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the first time the WSOPE main event was 8-handed. I am wondering if it is going to be 8- or 9-handed in the future.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)