This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DegenFarang (talk | contribs) at 19:41, 20 February 2013 (→Multiple links to profile pages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:41, 20 February 2013 by DegenFarang (talk | contribs) (→Multiple links to profile pages)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | 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)
- Redundancy does not equal spam. The information provided is useful and should be included in the article, normally as a source, but it is no crime to have stats in external links. Sometimes a site like Bluff is not as accurate as the Hendon Mob, but that doesn't make it spam. It just makes it an inferior link that should not be used. 2005 (talk) 20:42, 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)
- In the case of Vanessa Rousso, 3/4 of the external links are already used as sources. The external links are duplicates. This is common. DegenFarang (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, in which case I've absolutely no qualms about their removal. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- In the case of Vanessa Rousso, 3/4 of the external links are already used as sources. The external links are duplicates. This is common. DegenFarang (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Again DegenFarang mischaracterizes discussions and decisions that did not go his way. The poker-babes website was viewed as a poker expert site for poker rules/game content, but like every self-published site as the BLP policy evolved it became not appropriate as a source for any BLP. It no longer is used that way. DegenFarang repeatedly mislabels and mischaracterizes the site, and insults the good faith actions of the many admins and regular editors who added the site at one time or another. But that is not the issue here, and no broader one came up. Obviously there are exceptions, but the Wiki poker articles in general do follow Wiki policy: 1) self-published sites not associated with the subject of the article are not be used as sources or external links; 2) sources and external links in non-BLP articles should be from poker expert sites or otherwise generally reliable sources like newspapers. Regarding the original question, generally the Hendon Mob is the most reliable stats site overall, because they have the most complete data from the pre-2000 era. Cardplayer's stats are provided by the Hendon Mob. The World Series of Poker website, which DegenFarang has been labeling as spam, is their official site and the best result for their own stats. Some editors have been structuring sentences to use the Hendon Mob to list the overall winnings of a player, and then use the WSOP site to source the portion of those winnings from the WSOP. The Bluff stats are very incomplete and should not be used for any player who played before 2000 or so. If someone used Bluff as a source for a tournament result from last year though, it would be a reliable source. One final point, sports articles generally have a whole list of stat sites in their external links, for example, see Mickey Mantle. Four different sites the equivalent of the Hendon Mob type sites are all linked in the external links. Two basketball stats sites are listed for Michael Jordan. So, there is plenty of precedent for having more than one stats site in external links. However, with poker, I would think there is no reason to ever list a stat site that is less complete than the Hendon Mob site, except when the World Series or World Poker Tour official sites are used to list winnings or accomplishments from that specific entity's tournaments. 2005 (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- It should be noted though that while the Hendon Mob is the most extensive stat site, they also rather oddly mix the results of six-people TV show games like Poker After Dark with those of live, anybody can enter tournaments. Even the person who finshes last on those TV shows gets $10,000 for showing up, which is completely different from normal tournaments where 90% or so of the players get nothing. So, as yet I don't think there is a perfect stats site. In general though, if we were making an ideal article, we should choose the most extensive stats site, which normally will be the Hendon Mob. 2005 (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- You have been repeatedly asked to stop with the ad hominem attacks and discuss content and not people. Your insults, accusations and tantrums are not helpful. poker-babes.com spam was removed as a source and external link from essentially all poker BLP's. Let's move on. DegenFarang (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody is disputing the validity of wsop.com and the other sites for use as sources, I just question whether they should be allowed as external links. Each of them on their own is not spam and would be acceptable. The problem is that there are so many of them with similar content. And once you move beyond stats you have 'profiles' 'articles' 'interviews' and all sorts of other things which sneak in. Again, each on their own is not spam, they make fine sources. But a line needs to be drawn about what is acceptable as an external link - or else spam like poker-babes.com sneaks in and there are sprawling lists of external links. I think there should be a rule that only personal websites be allowed as external links and everything else needs to be a source. DegenFarang (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- In this case, trying to create a blanket rule about what's allowed and what isn't seems like overkill. If a list of external links is too long, it's a simple matter for a good faith editor to just trim it. Guidelines are fine, but we don't need an excessively long rulebook about what's allowed and what isn't. The general guidelines for lists of external links already covers this. The rest is just a matter of editor discretion and consensus about what stays or what goes in individual articles. Rray (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's what I tried to do and here we are. DegenFarang (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- You just said each on its own is not spam, but you repeatedly labeled them spam. You continually mischaracterize things that are not spam to be spam. WSOP.com is not spam. Do not label it or any similar sites "spam" again. 2005 (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Anything can be spam, depending upon how it is used. poker-babes.com is not spam when it is used as a reference on Shirley Rosario's hometown but it is spam in almost every other instance, for example. DegenFarang (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, anything can't be spam. No the site you mention is not spam. No Wsop.com is not spam. No, the New York Times is not spam. Spam is what the Misplaced Pages says it is, WP:SPAM. 2005 (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should read WP:SPAM. External link spamming is listed as one of the three types of spam. When aggressively added to articles, anything else could fall under "the inappropriate addition of links or information to Misplaced Pages with the purpose of promoting an outside organization" DegenFarang (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- As WP:SPAM and WP:EL make clear, and as you have been told by several editors now, the wsop.com and other links are not spam. Move on. 2005 (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Many of them are spam as they are currently being used. Further, allowing them as they are being used opens up the opportunity for spammy sites like poker-babes.com and playwinningpoker.com to try and sneak in as external links, which we should seek to prevent. DegenFarang (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Does anyone share the opinion that the use of these links constitutes "spam"? I don't see any other users who have come to that conclusion. Also, what makes these two particular sites (poker-babes.com and playwinningpoker.com) "spammy"? Since decisions are made here based on consensus, if only a single user thinks something is spam, and all the others users think it's not, then the consensus seems to lie in the other direction. Rray (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Poker-babes.com and playwinningpoker.com are both spam, that's why neither is used as a source or external link anymore. PokerPages.com was sold together with both of those sites to PokerStars so they were presumably owned by the same person. Once I can establish a clear connection with all of the above, I'll be seeking to have pokerpages.com removed as spam as well. DegenFarang (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Does anyone share the opinion that the use of these links constitutes "spam"? I don't see any other users who have come to that conclusion. Also, what makes these two particular sites (poker-babes.com and playwinningpoker.com) "spammy"? Since decisions are made here based on consensus, if only a single user thinks something is spam, and all the others users think it's not, then the consensus seems to lie in the other direction. Rray (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Many of them are spam as they are currently being used. Further, allowing them as they are being used opens up the opportunity for spammy sites like poker-babes.com and playwinningpoker.com to try and sneak in as external links, which we should seek to prevent. DegenFarang (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- As WP:SPAM and WP:EL make clear, and as you have been told by several editors now, the wsop.com and other links are not spam. Move on. 2005 (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should read WP:SPAM. External link spamming is listed as one of the three types of spam. When aggressively added to articles, anything else could fall under "the inappropriate addition of links or information to Misplaced Pages with the purpose of promoting an outside organization" DegenFarang (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, anything can't be spam. No the site you mention is not spam. No Wsop.com is not spam. No, the New York Times is not spam. Spam is what the Misplaced Pages says it is, WP:SPAM. 2005 (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Anything can be spam, depending upon how it is used. poker-babes.com is not spam when it is used as a reference on Shirley Rosario's hometown but it is spam in almost every other instance, for example. DegenFarang (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- You just said each on its own is not spam, but you repeatedly labeled them spam. You continually mischaracterize things that are not spam to be spam. WSOP.com is not spam. Do not label it or any similar sites "spam" again. 2005 (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's what I tried to do and here we are. DegenFarang (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- In this case, trying to create a blanket rule about what's allowed and what isn't seems like overkill. If a list of external links is too long, it's a simple matter for a good faith editor to just trim it. Guidelines are fine, but we don't need an excessively long rulebook about what's allowed and what isn't. The general guidelines for lists of external links already covers this. The rest is just a matter of editor discretion and consensus about what stays or what goes in individual articles. Rray (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody is disputing the validity of wsop.com and the other sites for use as sources, I just question whether they should be allowed as external links. Each of them on their own is not spam and would be acceptable. The problem is that there are so many of them with similar content. And once you move beyond stats you have 'profiles' 'articles' 'interviews' and all sorts of other things which sneak in. Again, each on their own is not spam, they make fine sources. But a line needs to be drawn about what is acceptable as an external link - or else spam like poker-babes.com sneaks in and there are sprawling lists of external links. I think there should be a rule that only personal websites be allowed as external links and everything else needs to be a source. DegenFarang (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- You have been repeatedly asked to stop with the ad hominem attacks and discuss content and not people. Your insults, accusations and tantrums are not helpful. poker-babes.com spam was removed as a source and external link from essentially all poker BLP's. Let's move on. DegenFarang (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- It should be noted though that while the Hendon Mob is the most extensive stat site, they also rather oddly mix the results of six-people TV show games like Poker After Dark with those of live, anybody can enter tournaments. Even the person who finshes last on those TV shows gets $10,000 for showing up, which is completely different from normal tournaments where 90% or so of the players get nothing. So, as yet I don't think there is a perfect stats site. In general though, if we were making an ideal article, we should choose the most extensive stats site, which normally will be the Hendon Mob. 2005 (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is a good idea, I think. Rray (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Some projects, such as WP:MLB (see Chris_Young_(pitcher)#External_links) and WP:FASHION (see Frankie_Rayder#External_links) have endeavored to create a template to make all the similar ELs a single line. We should do that for the five or six most prominent career stat databases.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ya, this one is great: Let's condense all of the various 'profiles' and 'statistics' type things into one row. For example all of the Vanessa Rousso links above. DegenFarang (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Like so: *Vanessa Rousso at Bluff Magazine, TheHendonMob, CardPlayer, WSOP.com
- DegenFarang (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I'm a little confused by your abrupt change in position. It seems like, earlier in the discussion, you were adamant that these links were "spam." Now they're "not spam" because the formatting has changed? In other words, if these links appear in a bulleted list, they're spam, but if they appear in a single line using commas instead of bullet points, they're no longer spam? Or have you changed your mind altogether about them being spam? I'm not at all opposed to changing the formatting, but it seems like such an abrupt reversal that I'm curious. Rray (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think that's a really good compromise. It's not exactly what I wanted but it's a huge improvement. DegenFarang (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I'm a little confused by your abrupt change in position. It seems like, earlier in the discussion, you were adamant that these links were "spam." Now they're "not spam" because the formatting has changed? In other words, if these links appear in a bulleted list, they're spam, but if they appear in a single line using commas instead of bullet points, they're no longer spam? Or have you changed your mind altogether about them being spam? I'm not at all opposed to changing the formatting, but it seems like such an abrupt reversal that I'm curious. Rray (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)