| Revision as of 13:28, 18 February 2013 editDegenFarang (talk | contribs)2,116 edits →Multiple links to profile pages← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:38, 18 February 2013 edit undoJaeDyWolf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers3,253 edits →Multiple links to profile pages: -> Reply, in agreementNext edit → | ||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
| :: I find two discussions you took part in: ] and ] (inside the collapsed section).<br>I'm surprised to see that I commented in the latter, I do not remember it. At a glance I don't see a 'decision' to disallow any and all profile links.<br>] 09:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | :: I find two discussions you took part in: ] and ] (inside the collapsed section).<br>I'm surprised to see that I commented in the latter, I do not remember it. At a glance I don't see a 'decision' to disallow any and all profile links.<br>] 09:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::: I guess we can have the discussion again. I propose only allowing personal websites as external links on poker BLP's because there are so many different websites which could be used as an external link. Every notable poker player has a profile on HendonMob, PokerPages, BluffMagazine, CardPlayer, PokerListings, WSOP and many others. These make great sources but because there are so many of them and they each contain basically the same information, I think they make bad external links and basically amount to spam. ] (]) 13:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | ::: I guess we can have the discussion again. I propose only allowing personal websites as external links on poker BLP's because there are so many different websites which could be used as an external link. Every notable poker player has a profile on HendonMob, PokerPages, BluffMagazine, CardPlayer, PokerListings, WSOP and many others. These make great sources but because there are so many of them and they each contain basically the same information, I think they make bad external links and basically amount to spam. ] (]) 13:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :I'm in agreement, here. My reluctance to be so (and I suppose other editor's reluctance) would be due to risking losing information. As long as there's some effort to convert these external links to sources where possible instead of just removing them, I don't see any problems. ] (]) 15:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:38, 18 February 2013
 | Gambling: Poker NA‑class | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Shortcut
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.
The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
- supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
- opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect
Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.
Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.
Highest ITM Main Event finish v. Highest Main Event finish
I'd like to propose that the infobox be altered to remove the "Highest ITM Main Event finish" line and be replaced with the "Highest Main Event finish," or at the very least include both lines. My reasoning is based on the fact that, if the infobox is to provide a summary of information/facts, then there can be confusion as to how well players have actually performed in the Main Event. For example, Gabe Kaplan's box has his highest in the money finish as 13th in 1991, which may lead some to believe that is the best he has finished. However, in 1980 Kaplan made the actual final table of the Main Event, finishing 6th, he just did not receive a payout. The way the template is designed now can be misleading in that regard and biased against certain players from the early years of the World Series, such as five-time bracelet winner Gary Berland, who is listed with highest ITM finish of 3rd in 1986, despite being runner-up in 1977; three-time bracelet winner Chip Reese, listed as 23rd in 1989 yet with a 6th place finish in 1979; and Jimmy Casella, who is list with no ITM finishes despite a final table appearance in 1972. It also removes a second place finish from Crandall Addington from being listed (finished 2nd in 1974 and 1978, yet only '78 is listed because in '74 the format was still winner take all). Thoughts? HidyHoTim (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- What you want is impossible. No considtent records were kept for years regarding people who finished out of the money, and records are still not available. Who finished 3027the this year? Does that person have a Wiki article? Who finished 98th in 2000? Does that person have a Wiki article? In the money finishes are the only thing we can track fairly accurately. 2005 (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with 2005, 1980 WSOP Main Event happens to be the last time that a final tablist didn't cash due the smaller fields, in fact at the 1971 WSOP the players made the FT just by buying in, there were only 6 players, the Kaplan example should be something that should mention in the body of the article in context to the field size at the time, to put out of money results in the infobox alone is misleading in and of itself.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡ 20:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agreeing with 2005 and Sirex98, I'm afraid. Personally, I find the current measure of highest ITM finish to be hideously biased in favour of early players, but that's largely just a nuance of my own head. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think highest ITM finish should also indicate field size. 5/6000, YYYY is very different than 5/50, YYYY.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agreeing with 2005 and Sirex98, I'm afraid. Personally, I find the current measure of highest ITM finish to be hideously biased in favour of early players, but that's largely just a nuance of my own head. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with 2005, 1980 WSOP Main Event happens to be the last time that a final tablist didn't cash due the smaller fields, in fact at the 1971 WSOP the players made the FT just by buying in, there were only 6 players, the Kaplan example should be something that should mention in the body of the article in context to the field size at the time, to put out of money results in the infobox alone is misleading in and of itself.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡ 20:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Blind (poker)
This has sat unsourced since pretty much since inception. Is there enough here for an actual article or should it be simply redirected to Betting_(poker)#Blinds.--Hu12 (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Multi Prize Pool tournaments
See this news article: , along with related ones if you like.
TL;DR Multi Prize pool tournaments are a new tournament format where players have some freedom of choice over how much they buy-in with, creating multiple prize pools. Benefits of this are that amateur players can afford to buy-in for different amounts and play with high-caliber, possibly professional players and thus increase a prize pool.
I believe that this is a potentially fascinating concept and could be deserving of either an article or a section in a different article. If so, I would like to take such an attempt to write it, as I would like to see if I can.
As a side-note, and forgive me for using Misplaced Pages as a forum, but wouldn't it be an amazing thing to see a HUGE multi prize pool tournament? Say, a $1,000/5,000/25,000/100,000/250,000 tournament? That would attract an insane number of players, all issues of collusion aside. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- While it is interesting, I'd hold off on an article until at least two notable tournaments actually use the structure in play. At this stage it rates as "things someone made up one day". We wouldn't want people to start making articles for games or structures that just pop into their heads. So again, I think we just wait for notability to be create when a significant bricvk and mortar or onle cardroom actually puts the structure into action. 2005 (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Multiple links to profile pages
I've just restored a number of links to external profile pages since I believe they were incorrectly removed as spam. However, they may in fact be redundant, so some trimming may be appropriate. I know nothing about professional poker, but for example these four links
- Rousso profile at Bluff Magazine
- Rousso profile at TheHendonMob.com
- Rousso profile at Card Player
- Rousso profile at WSOP.com
from Vanessa Rousso seem to show similar information; per our WP:EL policy we should probably trim them down.
Can anybody say which one of those is the most reliable ore most comprehensive?
Thanks, Amalthea 00:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- This was discussed at length 1-2 years ago however I can't find the discussion. Balloonman was involved in that discussion but his talk page says he has retired from Misplaced Pages. Does anybody else remember? It started because of the spam website poker-babes.com being used as an external link on basically every poker BLP. At that time it was decided that poker BLP's could only have as their external links official pages. Otherwise there is an essentially unlimited amount of spam and semi-spam which could be added for every notable poker player. I think this should remain the policy and only links to official websites, twitter profiles etc should be allowed and everything else should be used as a reference or not at all. DegenFarang (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I find two discussions you took part in: 2009#Poker Babes Bio and 2011#External links (inside the collapsed section).
I'm surprised to see that I commented in the latter, I do not remember it. At a glance I don't see a 'decision' to disallow any and all profile links.
Amalthea 09:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)- I guess we can have the discussion again. I propose only allowing personal websites as external links on poker BLP's because there are so many different websites which could be used as an external link. Every notable poker player has a profile on HendonMob, PokerPages, BluffMagazine, CardPlayer, PokerListings, WSOP and many others. These make great sources but because there are so many of them and they each contain basically the same information, I think they make bad external links and basically amount to spam. DegenFarang (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I find two discussions you took part in: 2009#Poker Babes Bio and 2011#External links (inside the collapsed section).
- I'm in agreement, here. My reluctance to be so (and I suppose other editor's reluctance) would be due to risking losing information. As long as there's some effort to convert these external links to sources where possible instead of just removing them, I don't see any problems. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)