Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gambling

Project existence and discussion

While discussion about individual articles is appropriate on the talk pages of those articles, sometimes multiple articles are involved or what is done on one article has style and consistency ramifications on others. This talk page can act as similar to the WikiProject Poker talk page where these sort of general style issues can be discussed. Most of the gambling articles deal with poker, so please use the Poker project talk page when that is more appropriate. The Gambling Project is intended to merely expand the great work already done in the poker area to the rest of the gambling articles of the Wikipedia. 2005 01:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, setting this up, 2005. I'm excited that we have a place to look at the "bigger picture".Rray 02:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Template for discussion pages

Now that it has been freed up, I created a project template, {{Gambling}}, that can be added to all the gambling articles talk pages. I would suggest that it NOT be added to all the Poker articles, since those already have the Poker Project template, and all discussion about them would be more appropriately handled within the Poker Project. (I just used the graphic and text from the Poker project template, so maybe there could be a better graphic that someone more creative could make someday.) 2005 03:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking Gambling from a game to a business

There are a number of people over the years that have decided to take the games of chance offered by the casinos and attempt to make money from them rather than just play them for fun and the 'chance' to win. What is it that defines the change? What is it that makes it a business? What is going on in the mind of the person that makes this move? This is the question! -- User:Kendaniel

Possible tasks

I just wanted to throw out some ideas of some tasks that might be added to the tasks section of the project. Looking for feedback before actually adding them to the project page itself.

• A series of articles describing each blackjack card counting system. (See Card counting.)
• A series of articles describing each different video poker game. (See List of video poker games).
• Expanding the list of articles about gambling websites to include the ones that aren't currently included.
• A series of articles about the different slot machine games available from various manufacturers.

Looking forward to others' input. Rray 03:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate renaming

A proposal to stranglely rename the Category:Gaming companies has been made here. While it is obviously not well-conceived, please add your comments. 2005 23:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Some basic cleanup

I think the project needs to look into some basic cleanup. The lead article of gambling lacks references and appears to include incorrect characterization of industry related terms. We probably also need to split some of that article out to another article or add a section on the gaming industry which is what drives legal (and maybe the illegal business as well). Finally we need to look at the categories. Does anyone understand the purpose of Category:Gambling variants? This looks like a very badly named category. Even after reading the intro I don't understand. I think it is intended for types of games you can use to gamble, but I'm not sure. Vegaswikian 06:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I used Gambling variants because gambling games seemed redundant category-wise, and because nitpickers might say dead pool and lotteries were not "games". I'd be happy to rename it "Gambling games". I find it hard to believe you can't understand the purpose though since it states it plainly, its for individual gambling games. The only issue I see about categorization is whether gambling regulation should be a subcat of gambling and society, but since it is more law than society I think it is better where it is.

I have it in my list of things to do to reference the gambling article, and a couple others, but I just haven't done it yet.

A gaming industry article definitely is a needed good idea. I've put that on my list of things now too, but I'd welcome it if you took a stab at writing one. To anticipate the pitchfork crowd though, what about a title... "Gaming_industry_(gambling)" or "Gaming_(gambling)_industry" or... 2005 08:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Gambling variants is a hard read Category:Gambling games makes more sense but is not without problems. Maybe Category:Gaming types or Category:Types of gaming could work. One solution for some of these would be to have a category for devices. That could include slot machines and dice and a few other items. Something like v with a subcat of Category:Gaming machines. I would like to see Category:Gambling regulation renamed to Category:Gaming regulation since this is generally about the legal oversight of the establishments and not really about gambling itself. We really need to clear up what is labeled as gaming v gambling. Vegaswikian 09:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We do have to anticpate the pitchfork crowd, but also have not be be clearly unclear... "types of gaming" is not right if you don't know it is purely a subcategory of gambling. Likewise "gaming types". Categories have to be able to stand on their own, and of course not get off-topic stuff put in them. Gaming regulation would seem the only one that could stand on its own, most all others would need a (gambling) dab to make the category specific. Things can be in more than one subcategory, so setting up another category (with subcategories) for devices would make sense, but that wouldn't impact how dice games would also be in a games subcategory. 2005 00:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me make a starting proposal. Rename Category:Gambling regulation to Category:Gaming regulation. This could be considered by some to be confusing, but the other types of games are not regulated. If this is anticipated to be a problem we can use Category:Gaming regulation (casino) which is probably a better dab since the regulations usually apply to some type of casino, card room or sports book. Create Category:Gaming devices and Category:Gaming machines again dab with (casino) if we feel that is necessary. Finally move Category:Gambling variants into Category:Casino games, I think this one works, but I really need to hear from you if this would work. I guess if there are no objections, you can implement the suggestions that you support. Vegaswikian 00:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not the last one, because dead pool, lotteries and others are not casino games, and of course poker can be played in someone's house. Why not "gambling games"? It may not be perfect, but it coveres everything and is clear enough. Also what is the distiction between "devices" and "machines"? Why two categories? I'm not saying I oppose that, only that I don't see a distinction... I'd just use the more broard term (devices I assume) and go with that. 2005 01:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy with Category:gambling games, but it is probably the best choice so far. As to your second question, dice are a device, a big wheel is a machine or a device, slots are machines. But as I write this reply I could see how using only device might be a better choice for now. Especially since two categories would be rather empty and device can really include both. Vegaswikian 02:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Going for a rename to gambling games and a new gambling devices works fine for me. 2005 07:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Gaming devices since the devices don't gamble. Vegaswikian 07:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

basic cleanup - part 2

Looks like the first set of category changes has been started. Given the discussions about naming in this area, I think the project really needs to define the terms used and the areas covered. Many individuals consider gaming and gambling as one in the same. Hence constructs like Category:Gambling companies which is not really desirable since this does not cover companies that gamble.

We really need to define the project scope more clearly. Most people look at the name and think casinos and stuff like that. However it appears to cover the companies working in this area, the players, the types of games, lotteries, games played in non-regulated environments and probably a few others. I don't think that the project name needs to change. But some work needs to be done to clearly define the scope and to use the same terminology across the various articles. As a example, the main article is gambling which is basically the act. It does not really imply the businesses or the devices that are a part of the process which are not really covered anywhere.

What needs to be done with the lead article, gambling? Should it be split? Should it be expanded to include the companies and casinos? Should it cover gaming devices? Why does it cover Parimutuel betting in detail when there is already an article? Should it be a brief overview with a series of articles on the various aspects that are terms used in other articles? Vegaswikian 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I only have a minute now, but we should organize things sensibly, regardless of obtuse edits by others. Gaming companies provide gambling games to the public. While the main gambling article in not good (it should most be just an idex page to other articles), the parimutuel example being obvious, we need to just build up the gaming aspect... if only so nonsense categories don't get made. The first question I see is whether we should depopulate the inapproriately named category, and create one that is appropriate. Besides that, "gaming" being subcategorized under gambling is okay because it can be subcategorized elsewhere. We need to keep it clear that a gaming company isn't required for gambling (people can literally bet each other), and a company doesn't need to particpate in gambling to be in the business of gaming. Gaming and gambling are not the same, but they do overlap, so we shouldn't be shy that they do, while also we need to be sure that they are not used as synonyms. 2005 02:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we need to 'organize things sensibly'. We should not jump to depopulate categories until there is a clear picture of how this part of the encyclopedia is to be dealt with. The Category:Gambling variants case was one where the creator agreed that this should be changed. However it does show that we are addressing the problems with the structure. I think working on the main article(s) and adjusting the category structure should come first. Then with a better picture we can move to rename if needed for any categories, but first create any new ones needed. I think the rewrites will take a while as will the adjusting of the categories. After I created Category:Gaming devices I discovered there there were quite a few missing so I did have to find articles to add to the category. I suspect that more are hiding out there. Again doing this work will take time. As to the company issue. We probably need to decide if this could be better organized. Does it make sense to put casino operators in the same category as slot manufactures? Would it be better to have these as sub cats? Again, this goes back to 'organize things sensibly' after discussion and planning, and then act. Vegaswikian 07:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've redone and de-crufted the main gambling article so that it is ordered logically and links to the main articles on the subtopics rather than just sort randomly expound on some but not others. I also made a paragraph distinction between gaming and gambling that should make things a bit clearer and allow some parallel structuring to be done in the future. (The one thing I left that is a bit odd is the associated word usage section although it strikes me as mega-trivia.) 2005 00:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Looks better. I did some minor word changes to continue the work. Is this article suppose to use British or American English? My spell checker is picking on some British words. Don't know if they should be changed. Vegaswikian 01:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• We probably need to address wagering/staking/wagers at some point. It should be clear how these interrelate. I sometimes think that this article should be titled wagering. Wager does show up a lot in the article text and in many of the articles. Vegaswikian 01:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Since this article isn't geo-local I suppose we are going to have a mix of US/UK phrasing, especially since casinos are more prevalent in the US and bokmakers more common in the UK. I suppose a few sentences clarifying many of these terms like bets, wagers, staking, bettors, punters all mean basically the same thing would be a good idea. However the scope of the article is beyond just wagering, as in some of things the wager is the end (a sports bet) while in the others the wagers are merely pieces of a bigger thing (poker games). Also wagers don't have to have monetary gambling, like two mayors wagering on the Super Bowl victor, or the list of wagers thing I spun to its own article. 2005 04:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirects to the Gambling article

If you look at the redirects to Gambling, many with a number of links, they are not really addressed in the article and clearly lack bolded links early in the article. This list is:

• Betting
• Gambler and Gamblers
• Gambling system (without any redirects but one that probably needs to point somewhere else)
• Christian views of gambling (which probably needs to be deleted) (on RfD).
• Bettor
• Gamble
• Gambeling
• Bets
• Wagering
• Economic and social impacts of gambling
• Even money

We need to keep these in mind while we decide how to restructure. The more digging, the more problems we seem to find. Vegaswikian 07:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use template

Back in December I proposed a merger for three fair use templates, Template:Game-cover, Template:Boardgamecover, and Template:RPG-artwork. I made an effort to publicise the merge on the villiage pump and various places that deal with fair use templates. After a lot of support on tfd and a lack of opposition elsewhere I attempted the merge on January 15. Post-merge I've had two objections, one of which said that I "should have brought up the merge with the various projects that manage those covers" (which I thought I was doing when I informed WikiProject Fair use). The merge has been reverted by the person who said I should have brought up the merge in more places. So here we go... IF ANYONE FROM THIS PROJECT CARES ABOUT THIS MERGE PLEASE VISIT Template_talk:Game-cover#Merge AND JOIN IN DISCUSSION THERE. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Review for Blackjack

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Blackjack --Andrew Levine 06:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Blackjack has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What does "slot machine" exactly mean

Does a slot machine mean (1) any coin-operated gambling machine or (2) the specific type of a gambling machine where there are rotating reels and the winnings are paid according to matching symbols (that is, a fruit machine)? In particular, is it correct to categorize payazzo and pachinko in the "slot machines" category? At least the Slot Machine article names video poker as a type of a slot machine.86.115.21.76 11:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability criteria for a poker and blackjack player

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Reeves. The issue is whether the article meets the criteria of WP:BIO. Monica Reeves is a poker player with a few decent tournament results but nothing outstanding. She also made the final table of a televised blackjack tournament (see Elimination Blackjack). --Mathew5000 00:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is this project still active? There seem to only be one editor active. Kariteh 08:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Scroll up. 2005 09:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"7 April 2007". Thanks. I take it the project is inactive (the project, not your individual contributions). Kariteh 10:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Casino

Can anyone see why {{Infobox Casino}} does not work for Cache Creek Casino Resort? Vegaswikian 05:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Never mind, I just found the coding problem in the template. Vegaswikian 05:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Dice control article

I've asked an admin I know to weigh in also, but a new user insists on adding material to the Dice control article that isn't supported by the sources he's citing. {I don't think the information is even accurate, much less verifiable.) I'd appreciate it if some other editors interested in gambling articles here could weigh in at the talk page there. Rray 05:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Casino bonuses and Bonus hunting

I'm not convinced that we need or should have two separate articles on this subject. It seems to me like there is not a whole to say about Bonus hunting that couldn't and/or shouldn't be added to the Casino bonuses article. I'd be interested in others' thoughts about this though. Rray (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it occurs to me that Comps (casino) is basically on the same topic as the other two articles. Maybe combining all of these articles into a single Gambling incentives article would make more sense? Rray (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The comps article should stay since it is the primary term used. However that article needs a lot of work. Bonus hunting probably fails WP:V and WP:RS. I'm not sure about casino bonuses, but it may have the same problems. Since these two article are specifically about online casinos, maybe they should be combined or if there is not sufficient material after cleaning up to meet WP:V and WP:RS combined into the article on online casinos. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Online casino#Signup bonuses is further redundancy. How about if we have a final goal of 1) making sure we keep Comps (casino), then 2) try merging all content from Bonus hunting and casino bonuses to Online casino#Signup bonuses with a slight rename of the section to "Bonuses and incentives". if that section becomes too long, we could spilt it out to its own article, "Online gambling incentives" which would interlink with Comps (casino). The Comps article should get a section saying "Online comps" which would be a one line link to either the online casino article section or the new article whichever it ends up being. 2005 (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think bonus hunting and casino bonuses should be a separate single article, and online casinos should be a separate article. That article is a clusterfuck right now. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If Casino bonuses is going to be recreated, it would need a new name since it was only about online casinos. Why not defer a decision on that and work on cleaning up Online casino? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. GusChiggins21 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think they should be separate articles, you should present your reasoning for that here, since the consensus was to merge the articles. Saying that the article about online casinos is a "clusterfuck" probably isn't reason enough to generate individual articles for the separate subjects. The main thing to keep in mind is that you have to demonstrate notability with references to reliable souces to include articles on these topics, and even then, if it's a content fork, it might still be more appropriate to include it within the main article. Rray (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think they should be separate articles because bonus whoring is a very particular subject. Few people who would be reading about online casinos would want an extremely detailed analysis of how to beat games by analyzing which games have low house advantages, calculating the EV with wagering requirements, how to amortize a sticky bonus and how using a sticky strategy on cashables to maximize EV, but the effect that this has on risk of ruin and.... all of that stuff is great for an article on bonus whoring, but not a general article on casinos. And poker bonuses simply don't belong in the online casino article. I think that the online casino article should focus on games offered, how to transfer money, maybe ethical problems, problems with blacklisted casinos, watchdogs (even though there aren't really any watchdogs), etc. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

First, the situation we had was not good -- discussing bonuses in one place, and the practice of benefiting from bonuses in another. Now it is at least better tha they are together. Perhaps that whole section should be taken out and made a separate article. That would seem okay, but I'd suggest we tighten that section, and source the various "citation needed" things, and get that text stable for a couple days, then we could discuss whether to break it out and leave a "main article: bonus...." something to be decided ("Online casino bonuses" could cover both the existence of them and the hunting aspects.) I did a bunch of sourcing and removing redundant parts earlier, but some more needs to be done. So, I think now that it is together let's get it in good shape, then discuss whether to move it and if to move it what to name it. (I'll move the poker section in a minute with a pointer to the online poker article, and a pointer from there back to the casino bonus section.) 2005 (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The bonuses section of the online casinos article is a bit clustered, but the solution is not to move cluster elsewhere. That section should just be edited down and made consistent. Bonuses and profiting from them is not the most important topic in the world, and we shouldn't get bogged down into too much detail about it. We should just say online casinos offer these bonuses, and that while they are casino incentives, smart players can turn a profit from them. 2005 (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the bonus section is bad, I just think it's too far off the main topic. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Gambling companies

There is a nomination to get Category:Gambling companies renamed to something closer to the normally used gaming companies. Participate if interested. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggested Category:Gaming companies (gambling) over "wagering" because the Luddite element that simply refuses to accept the societal norm should be more comfortable with it. It would be very good to get the current title changed since it is almost embarrasing to be associated with the Wikipedia when it does soemthing like this (without a clear consensus last time too). 2005 (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Are there any more opinions for or against? If there is support here I'd like to move forward with a proposed rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Casino stubs

Currently there are about 55 stubs in Category:Casino stubs. I think it would be nice to have some kind of an effort to reduce this number to improve the overall quality of casino related articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new section: Gambling :: Simulation Software

In looking to post information about the Craps Simulation Software my company produces, I find no appropriate section for that. I do understand about Wikipedia not wanting to be an advertising list and want to abide by that idea. In my mind people looking in this section might have interest in a wide range of computer software for practicing or playing their favorite game at home. I believe such a list of Simulation Software would benefit both consumers and software producers.

Request For Comments Mycrapsgame (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well for starters, you probably need to read WP:COI. Basically you should be avoiding articles about your company. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposing a new Section that benefits both both consumers and software producers is good information, not Conflict of Interest. Mycrapsgame (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a conflict of interest to add information to benefit a product your company sells. Proposing something is fine. However, this is an encyclopedia, not a consumer product guide. Even if we say simulation software exists, we aren't here to list the different brands or products. 2005 (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The hypocracy of this argument is that no mention of any company with a product or service should be listed. That's not good information,its just the arrogance of the self appointed editors. We see a "Category:Gambling companies" section as evidence of this hypocracy. Mycrapsgame (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you read WP:COI and how it advises you to avoid editing certain articles? If a sourced section on this topic appeared, from an editor with no conflict then it would probably be acceptable. However I would ask, would this be better in an article on simulation software with a link from here? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 584 articles are assigned to this project, of which 195, or 33.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I be of some assistance?

Found the project when trying to clean up a betting article, '2005' reorganised it for me & added the wikiproject bit to the discussion page. Have worked in the industry in Britain in the past, so know a bit about a few of the companies & most of the terms etc, i am fairly keen & my wiki knowledge is gradually growing now I've bothered to register. let me know, cheers Stephenjwz (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the articles more totally Brit-focused could use some help for sure. There do seem to be several overlapping Tote articles that I personally can see why they are different. 2005 (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've started to have a bash at the tote's article, lots of 'facts' in there so it'll take a while to sift through what can be cited/kept. I'll chip away at it and the other couple of pages I've added to. Cheers Stephenjwz (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)