Template talk:2010s WSOP bracelet winners

Should the "total wins" be removed?

The total number of wins has recently be removed; it is a major change to the template and I feel that those who are interested in these templates should offer their opinions. In my view, the claim that they "weren't maintained" is incorrect, as the second number indicated the total number of bracelets the player had won up to that point. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I believe that it had encyclopedic information that did not need to be updated. I think that the information should be restored and WP:PRESERVEd.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion on this but... infoboxes do show total bracelets, and those are fairly well-maintained. Having the bracelets in the template does add info, but also makes it more difficult to read. I could go either way, but _if_ it were true that the templates were not maintained every time someone with wins from the 90s or 80s won another bracelet, it would not be good. However, it isn't a huge project for every year to have someone make sure they are all updated at the end of of each WSOP. So, I have no objection to doing it either way, as long as two weeks from now all the templates are up to date. 2005 (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

They don't require updating at the end of each year, as the numbers indicated how many bracelets the players had up until the end of that WSOP. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Bracelets up to that point? I'd support eliminating that. I see that as unhelpful and confusing. 2005 (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This is true as can be seen from the old revision of the 1980's template in the year 1989 [1] note that Phil Hellmuth is (1/1) not 11, however there should be some kind of a note at the bottom that explains (if bracelet counts are kept) to reader it's up to date, otherwise being a Wiki people may seek to 'correct it'. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 00:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it should. As stated above, the infoboxes contain this information. Whilst the total number of bracelets to that point could be considered interesting, it clutters the template and makes it difficult to read. It is also very confusing as to what the number represents to the reader, it makes sense to the creator but adds little to the infobox as far as conveying meaning. There is also the issue of maintaining the bracelet count, although I think that to be a minor consideration. Lympathy ^Talk 05:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be highly consistent with the encyclopedic content in article space (see 2005–2011 World Series of Poker results). Why don't we argue this someplace where it will get a lot more traffic from non-poker experts to resolve whether there is confusion to the reader. Why don't you strip the bracelet count content from 2008 World Series of Poker results and see what people think at WT:FLC the templates should be consistent with article space. E.g. Jeff Lisandro has won several bracelets since 2008. I think everyone involved in the discussion here actually understands World Series of Poker bracelet subject matter well. I think the test is whether general WP readers find this content unnecessarily confusing. I also think the templates should be consistent with the articles. Even Tom Schneider at 2007 World Series of Poker results has (1/1) for the first of his two wins that year.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I just realized that to keep the article space lists constant it would mean that every time a player wins a bracelet you would have to go back to all the prior articles where he finished at the prior table and update all the counts. This is a burdensome responsibility. Thus, if we are going to abandon the contemporary count, I suggest the career count be abandoned rather than converted to current count. I do believe that the templates should be consistent with article space on whatever we do, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be the total number of bracelets won. The WSOP doesn't use (1/1) in the template but has it in the main article and they have a key to explain what it represents, which I am happy with. The information is better maintained in an article. I think your point that this discussion should be expanded to less dedicated poker readers is valid as they're the ones who this effects the most. Lympathy ^Talk 11:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#World_Series_of_Poker_Bracelets.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the brackets are brilliant for lists such as 2007 World Series of Poker results, but I don't think they translate well into the template. Not a poker expert by the way (well, I'm a more-or-less-break-even low stakes pub player, but I don't follow the big events). —WFC— 16:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I have spent some time thinking about this. It is questionable whether the fact that the career totals aren't maintained is a valid argument. However, the clutter arguments are strong. In navboxes of this kind the only numbers I ever see are years and jersey numbers. Most award templates like these don't include career totals. Oscars, U.S. Opens (golf or tennis), Olympics, etc. Just names and in the rare case where a name would appear twice, put a parenthetical. The corrections made have done this. The issue of whether career totals should be maintained should be addressed at WP:FLC and they seem to be ignoring the issue. I am kind of comfortable with the current syntax on the YYYY WSOP results lists. Thus, I think that changes that have been made recently are correct and complete.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Despite how long it took me to sort out the numbers, I'd have to agree that the templates themselves certainly look cleaner. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)