Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Guidelines

Needs addition and revision

I have mainly just copied the list posted in the discussion of the WikiProject Poker page, I just thought I'd make an official article about it. The content will probably need reviewing, I for one am not sure about one of the cases listed. Why should "slow play" not use a hyphen? "Slow play" doesn't seem dissimilar from "check-raise". They are both verbs used to describe the doing of some sort of play, and they are both specific poker terms. Why should "slow play" not use a hyphen? --Hpesoj00 14:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Slow" is an adjective describing the play, but "check" and "raise" are two verbs. Since you can't usually put two unrelated verbs together syntactically in English, the hyphen is necessary. Also, you'll never see "check-raise" outside of a gaming context, but any baseball player could maka a slow play. Finally, a check-raise is a more well defined move than a slow play, which is more of a general strategy. Ojcit 20:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed guidelines

This section should be used to add or discuss any proposals for guidelines to include in the main article, or changes to make to guidelines. Please post here before adding to the main article and your suggestion will be added unless there is a general consensus against it.

• Hand notation

When listing cards without specific suit, make sure to embolden and hyphenate the list, for example K-K-7-3-2. When the cards do have a specific suit you can use the Unicode symbols for the suits: ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠; in most Windows based applications the following alt codes can be used for easy access:

• ♥ - Alt+3
• ♦ - Alt+4
• ♣ - Alt+5
• ♠ - Alt+6

If you can use the alt codes please do, rather than the html codes:

• ♥ - ♥
• ♦ - ♦
• ♣ - ♣
• ♠ - ♠

Make sure that hearts and diamonds are displayed in a red font. Specific suit cards should not be hyphenated. For example: K♠ K♦ 7♥ 3♠ 2♣. Try not to combine the two styles within a single example, but if it is necessary either fully hyphenate or don't at all. One exception is when using x to represent an unknown card, the non-hyphenated style should be used J♥ J♦ J♣ J♠ x.

Instead of the T notation for the number 10 card (standard in many books on poker), simply use 10 as some people are unfamiliar with the former notation.

Am adding to list since there is no debate (that could just be that no one looks at this page :P) --Hpesoj00 19:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Should terms such as "ace-high" have a hyphen?--Hpesoj00 22:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Should all terms describing the number of cards have a hyphen ("five-card draw", "two-card hand")? Some exceptions at the moment seem to be four card poker and three card poker.--Hpesoj00 22:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Which games should use capital letters? I'm not convinced of the current rules. Maybe all poker games should start with a capital letter? Maybe just the words that uniquely identify the game should be capitalised, e.g. hold 'em, stud, draw do not identify games; Pai Gow, Texas and Omaha do. This might mean that games like five-card draw and three-card brag never use capital letters.--Hpesoj00 22:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Specifically, I don't see why slow play should not use a hyphen. It is decribing a form of play just like check-raise and semi-bluff, both of which apparently should use hyphens.--Hpesoj00 22:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right about slow-play. It's parallels are the ones you mention, and they are hyphenated. Similarly Seven-card stud is how the articles are done, so I would think the "number-card" words should be hyphenated. Personally I d; rather see all games capitalized, bit all games and betting sttuctures being not capatilized is OK too (except the proper nouns of Texas and Omaha). 2005 23:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not cite examples from some of the better books? 2+2 has IMHO pretty terrible typsetting and layout, but isn't there some agreement on the names of the games? Keep in mind that hyphens tend to be temporary in the long run in English (when was the last time you read about a shoe-lace or out-house?). If you're going for legitimacy, I'd err on the side of fewer hyphens. Ojcit 21:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing close to a consensus on how to name these games... 7 card stud, Seven Card Stud, etc etc. I'd currently err on the side of doing things how they are currently done, otherwise we could have a lot of double redirects and even things where no redirects work because nobody has thought to spell it a certain way. I'd suggest a list of how all the games are spelled be included here. If any minor games like three card brag stand out differently, they can be brought in line with the others. 2005 21:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My personal preference is to capitalise all parts of a name, but since the naming convention here seems to be mainly lower case I think it'd be better to just capitalise at least the first letter (or rather, it'd be stupid to change everything otherwise). A list of standard names would seem the way to go. As you said, double barrelled words are tending to lose the hyphen and become single words nowadays, but most of the terms here are not in mainstream use (and some of them will never become conjoined), and the choice is whether to separate them with a hyphen or space (allin, checkraise, acehigh, fourflush are simply not correct); however, omitting the hyphen in many of the cases could cause confusion, at least in a grammatical sense.--Hpesoj00 23:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting making them one word. It's too bad googlefight won't distinguish the usage. I guess I didn't realize the logistical issues with the different spellings. Of the list, I'd hyphenate check-raise and maybe all-in, simply because in those cases the sentence is hard to parse without it (esp. for the uninitiated). Again, these constructions go against English syntax, and are in that sense are already new words. I would think there's probalby a precedent somewhere around here for whether or not to use single-digit numbers in titles, but now I notice that 3 Musketeers and Three Musketeers go different places. And, now that I look, Sklansky and Brunson tend to put hyphens at every opportunity, Malmuth is worse ("Winner-Take-All"), and Harrington has eight hyphens on the cover of his book. It's a fine mess, but since all these books are in print anyway, we need to at least make sure that the spellings they use point to the right articles, and including a note of alternate spellings early in each article couldn't hurt. As much as it pains me to see a hyphen in "No-Limit," it's a fight I'm destined to lose. Ojcit 19:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure really, hyphens are a very vague area of the English language: mainly because most people seem to not use them. "No limit" would probably not cause any confusion unless someone interpreted "I play no limit poker" as "I never play limit poker"; however, then you could argue that if "I play no-limit poker" is the accepted form, then you should write "I play no limit-poker". However, "I play pot limit poker" would never cause confusion, so should that be hyphenated just to be in-keeping with the trend? Most of these terms should be hyphenated to prevent confusion.

• "His tactic was slow play" — Is he playing slowly or actually using the poker tactic of slow-playing?
• "The game was Omaha high low limit poker" — Is the game "Omaha high-low limit poker" or "Omaha high low-limit poker"?

Obviously, the cases above aren't going to apply every time you use those phases, so we could say it is up to the writer's discretion as to whether a hyphen is needed, always go for clarity and if confusion could arise, go for the hyphen — with the exception of course of a few cases (imo):

• High-low
• Check-raise
• All-in
• Five-card
• Ace-high
• Semi-bluff (it is accepted English that semi- needs a hyphen)
• Open-handed
• Etc, this list is anything but comprehensive

The above words really do deserve a hyphen in my opinion; terms such as "slow play, buy in, bring in, rolled up, no limit, spread limit" don't necessarily require one, and could go either way.--Hpesoj00 12:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

List of standard poker games

Please refine list. Could be turned into a page on it's own?--Hpesoj00 00:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Omaha Hi-Lo uses capitalised "Hi-Lo"; should all other high-low games use this notation (and should things like Chicago low using 'Lo' instead? Or should they all use 'high-low'?)--Hpesoj00 00:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Alligator stud
• Anaconda or "Pass the trash"
• Auction
• Australian stud
• Badugi
• Baseball
• Big Chicago
• Billabong
• Blind stud
• Buffalo stud
• California lowball
• Cincinnati
• Chicago
• Chicago high-by-night
• Chicago low
• Chicago low-by-night
• Chowaha
• Cowpie poker
• Crazy Pineapple
• Crocodile stud
• Double-board hold 'em
• Double-draw poker
• Dr Pepper
• Draft or "Socialist poker"
• Eight-or-better high-low stud
• English stud
• Five-card draw
• Five-card stud
• Follow the queen
• Four-before poker
• Gardena jackpots or "Jackpots" or "Jacks to open"
• Guts
• Iron cross
• Johnson or "Jacks back"
• Kansas City or "Low poker" or "Billy Baxter"
• Kentrel
• Lame-brain Pete
• Little Chicago
• Scandinavian stud or "Sökö"
• London lowball
• Low hole card wild
• Manila
• Mexican stud
• Mississippi stud
• Murrumbidgee stud
• Number nine
• Omaha Hi-Lo or "Omaha/8"
• Omaha hold 'em or "Omaha high only"
• Option alley
• Oxford stud
• Pai gow poker
• Pan-9
• Pineapple
• Pinatubo
• Razz
• Seven-card flip
• Six-card stud
• Six pack
• Shanghai
• Shifting sands
• Shotgun or "Roll 'em out"
• Skinny Minnie
• Spit in the ocean
• Stud horse poker
• Tahoe hold 'em
• Telesina
• Texas hold 'em or "Hold 'em"
• Tic-tac-toe
• The Bitch
• Triple-draw poker
• Q-Ball
• Zanetti stud

Looks good, but is there a way to sub-categorize them? They'll overlap, but generally you have stud games, draw games, community games, and games with card passing (pineapple? I've never played it myself). Would it be more useful to have separate lists in separate articles, or would that just create more work? Are there other lists of card games and/or casino games we'd need to interface cleanly with? Ojcit 00:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I compiled this list by looking though articles describing the general categories of poker games, so I'm not sure separating them into separate articles again would be very productive. Categorising them may be useful, but as you said, there would be significant overlap in some cases. My initial aim was just to make a reference list of standard names for poker games, so perhaps leaving them in alphabetical order would be the best idea? I don't think the list should be added until there is some agreement about whether to add them to the main page or create a new page, and also that the current list is sensible (especially with the major game names). --Hpesoj00 21:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification needed for plural card ranks using abbreviation

1. Should it be "a pair of 9s" or "a pair of 9's"? I would think 9s, but I suppose that could be mistaken for "9 suited" (although there isn't a meaning for "9 suited", since every 9 has a suit...).
2. Should card rank abbreviations be J or J? I prefer having the rank abbreviations and cards always be emboldened when using abbreviations.
3. If card ranks should be emboldened, would it be 9s or 9s? I prefer 9s.
4. In the current page it says: "When listing cards without specific suit, make sure to embolden and hyphenate the list, for example K-K-7-3-2." However, it is common practice when discussing Texas hold 'em hands to list the two card hand as KJ instead of K-J. I think either form should be accepted in that case, although for listing hands of more than two cards without regard to suit I would stick with the hyphen version. Certainly, I can't see using K-Js instead of KJsto mean king-jack suited. However, the hyphenless version does not look good when using 10 instead of T (e.g. 9Ts is fine, but 910s is bad), so the admonishment against using T instead of 10 would not apply in this case. (My suggestion would be to prefer 10♥, but not require it so when usage is mixed with 9Ts and 9♥ T♥ the designation for 10 can be consistent.)

These are the questions that keep me up at night.   —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 09:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

1. If in a sentence, spell it out: "a pair of nines." The only time I'd use the digit 9 would be if I were doing the concise form ("99"), and then only when listing it among several possible hole card pairs.
2. Most of the literature doesn't make the cards bold, and I don't think it's necessary for clarity. It would be a pain to enforce, too; not everybody around here is as bold-happy as you appear to be. Similarly, it's only like three more keystrokes to spell out the word; get your money's worth out of your keyboard and spell it out.
3. Mixing formats in the middle of a token (i.e., with no space between the different styles) is too much trouble, and something of a typographical feaux pas. Basically, you're not giving any new information by un-boldening the s.
4. I vote no on hyphens when using single letter designations, but for more than two I think it's appropriate. Using the suit symbols is a nice touch, but the single 's' notation is well-established (at least for hold 'em). I'm surprised there's not a poker template somewhere around here to show hands. However, when spelling out the hole cards, it is appropriate (e.g., "ace-jack suited"). Lastly, I would only use a T for 10 when describing starting hole cards in hold 'em, and even then tend to restrict it to tables or other places where space is at a premium. Ojcit 05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. OK, I agree with that. It's not what I've seen in most of the articles, but I agree esp. for plurals it works best.
2. My bold-happy was trying for consistency. Since the style page (and also the common practice in the articles) uses bold for A-K-Q and A♠ K♠ Q♠, it seems like any single-letter abbreviations should follow that style. I actually think it helps in making the hands and cards being discussed stand out from the surrounding text, but the idea to use bold was not mine. The reason sometimes it is preferable, IMO, to use the abbreviations for a card instead of spelling out (and to embolden the abbreviated card name) is because it makes patterns more discernable. For example, if the text is discussing a hand of king-jack offsuit when the flop comes A-K-T, then I think it is easier for a reader to correlate the hand KJo with the flop than search the text for the spelled-out version. YMMV, but I think my example here illustrates the point.
3. OK, fine with that.
4. I'm OK with this. BTW, 9Ts and 9♥ T♥ are clearly not the same thing—my example above wasn't meant to imply that when used together they would be interchangeable, but rather that when discussing 9Ts, an accompanying example might use 9♥ T♥ or 9♥ 10♥.

The reason I was posting my question here is that I think these issue should be covered in the style page. I wanted to start the dialog to see what other people thought the style manual should say. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Pronoun

I have changed the pronoun guideline. It did not have consensus before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker. If someone is interested in changing it back, I would be happy to discuss it. But, please, don't add it back until we have reached a consensus about it. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

cards template

I have replaced the length discussion of the appearance of cards with a simple requirement to use the {{cards}} template. Since {{cards}} follows all of our guidelines, this results in no actual change in the appearance of our pages. However, it greatly simplifies the requirements here and actually opens up more options for the editor. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I do not understand the naming conventions here. I would expect that the names of games are proper nouns (Texas Hold 'Em, Five-card Draw, Pai Gow Poker, Omaha Hi-Lo). The alternative would be common nouns (Texas hold 'em, five-card draw, Pai Gow poker, Omaha hi-lo). I can't figure out why the recommendations include "playing Five-card draw" (neither proper noun nor common noun), or why "Hi-Lo" is capitalized while "hold 'em" isn't. But a quick scan of the New York Times hits shows plenty of inconsistency too (Texas Hold 'em on November 10, Texas Hold 'Em on October 24, Texas hold 'em on April 21). Can someone explain? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There is inconsistency all over the place both on Wiki and the general public on all these names. The way this guideline approaches it is basically a reflection of how the mass of articles are/were currently named. In other words, whoever was editing in 2004 or so chose this way, and so guidelines written four or so years later were adopted reflecting the current practice, largely because adopting something else now would need a great change of behavior, and would probably lead to many broken links if changes were meade piecemeal. There have been discussions at WP:POKER about names and changing how we do it, so maybe you can start a discussion there where more eyes will see it. But so far there hasn't been a strong consensus on the part of at least a half dozen people to change the way things have been done. 2005 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker (guidelines) → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (poker) — The page should be renamed because all the other manual of style pages have this naming pattern.--Bernolákovčina (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing this from the Style guidelines of WikiProjects category. It belongs there with the numerous other similar Project guidelines. 2005 (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.