Talk:Poker tools

Gambling Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

Notability

I know that poker software of various types used in online play are notable as a whole, but I'm not convinced that this particular type is notable in and of itself. I added a notability tag here in order to get some feedback from other editors regarding this. Rray 14:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing you're part of the WikiProject Gambling, can you explain to me what this means exactly and how I can be part of this ? I'm quite new to contributing to Wikipedia. Also, I'm planning to extend this article with more resources. Poker Hand Converters are extremely popular and a vital aid for analysis. Any suggestions for this article or contributions to will be welcomed. 14:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Dennisict —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisict (talk • contribs)

Articles in the Wikipedia have a criteria for inclusion called "notability", which basically means being worth noticing. You can read about notability here: Wikipedia: Notability. Welcome aboard, and I hope the link is worthwhile/helpful. Rray 15:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had read it prior to posting up the article. I think they are in and on itsself notable, but I'm not certain how to "establish" this by posting. I take it the idea is to expand the article with relevant information/resources to demonstrate its notability? Any pointers will be helpful. Dennisict who doesn't know how to sign posts yet. :o) —Preceding comment was added at 15:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is generally established by including references to reliable sources which deal with the specific topic in a non-trivial manner. Neither of the references included in the article mention the phrase "poker hand converter". A Google search does show a lot of results for the phrase of "poker hand converter", so maybe appropriate references could be found online. But I still don't see why "Poker Hand Converter" warrants a separate article from a more general article about poker software in general? Rray 16:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A general poker software article is something I'm intending to write as well. The difference, however, is that poker software generically is not web-based, whereas all hand converters are. Somehow they don't seem to fit the former catagory. However, I'll extend this article to establish its notability and write up a poker software article when I have some spare time. I may merge this article then with the poker software article if it fits the scope. Dennisict 17:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thanks for the advice you offered and helping me with signing. ;) Dennisict 17:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dennisict, I suggest that you start a general article on poker software, and include this as a section. We could then merge the content of this current article into a bigger software main article. Other topics of interest might be tracking tools such as Poker Tracker, HUD programs, etc. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 17:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll leave this article here until I finish it. I don't want to post a half-finished poker software article, and we can merge this article at a later time. Dennisict 17:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we need a poker software article, and also think we don't need one this specific. This is an aspect of something bigger, not really a stand alone thing. The basic thing is how hand histories can be used, for player stats, or conversion, or to replay. I'd say move this the Poker software tools and expand it to include mentions of all the different tool things. (Poker software would be okay with me too, but adding tools makes more sense to me.) 2005 23:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

been a week now and no change so I guess I'll start doing the work. 2005 07:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the more generic article. I would like to reinclude links to the converters out there, as I did in my original article. Any objections to including those again? 22:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisict (talk • contribs)

There is a link to the Dmoz category. We don't need, and should not, link to specific commercial products. This is an encyclopedia, not a buying guide. 2005 23:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we don't need a list of links to the converters out there. Wikipedia is not a link directory. Rray 00:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just found this one: pokertools.org, useful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.110.60.2 (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice enough site for what it does, but Wikipedia links need to have encyclopedia value. This is a shopping comparison site which does not meet WP:EL. 2005 (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

Is there a reason why no specific examples of the various kinds of tools are listed? This page seems rather pointless without them. If there is no reason why they aren't included, I'll add some; I just don't want to waste time if they'll just be edited right back out. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaddeusB (talk • contribs) 00:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tools are mostly generic. Calling out specifics is pointless and lead to spamming. This is an encyclopedia, not a shopping help site. We just say what can be done. Brand names aren't helpful and should get removed promptly. 2005 (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but there might be a good need for compare/contrasts of the various versions. KyNephi (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]