Talk:List of slang names for poker hands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Etymology of "Duck"[edit]

Anyone have a credible citation on the etymology of "duck" for deuce? I should think that if it were a reference to shape, it would be "swan", and that a simple corruption of "deuce" is more likely. --LDC 18:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming Waiter[edit]

Just as the Q3 is listed as a "flaming gay waiter"; the J3 is called the "Flaming Waiter" (not gay). J is a waiter, the 3 makes it flaming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.46.47 (talk • contribs) 15:21, June 28, 2007

Please do not add vanity nonsense to the page. There is not even one incidence of your J3 assertion online. 2005 00:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Vanity nonsense?" Can you please explain what that means? ... As for J3 being called a Gay Waiter, it's been published, but I can't cite the referrence; the logic follows: J is a waiter, the 3 makes it flaming. Now, the article states a Q3 as a Flaming Gay waiter, or a Posh Gay Waiter: The Q, of course is a Gay Waiter, and the 3 makes it flaming (or posh). Transcend103 15:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By "vanity", I think what 2005 means is that it seems like this is a term that's being made up on the spot (WP:NFT), since we can't find sources for it. Please be aware that per Wikipedia's policy of verifiability, we can't include information in Wikipedia unless it's linked to a source. I'm willing to assume good faith on your part, but what we should do is remove the information for now, and then when you can find the reference, it can be re-added. You may also wish to read WP:NOR. --Elonka 17:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea where the "flaming" comes from, but a Gay Waiter is Q3 and not anything else - directly from queen -tray. "Queen" being the stereotype effeminate homosexual, a waiter carries a tray, which is homophonic with trey, tres and très - which are all "three".--Alf melmac 19:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flaming is slang for gay. Λυδαcιτγ 20:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is, though it is not "the 3 makes it flaming" as the ip that first posted suggests and I doubt the veracity that "Flaming Gay Waiter" is current termininology (see Wikipedia:Complete bollocks ;)), certainly not on any of the (televised) poker shows I watch, nor used by anyone I play THE with.--Alf melmac 18:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey morons its a queen and a trey, flaming waiter.

Oedipus Rex[edit]

Q-J = Oedipus Rex (incestuous mother and son) Hand Names Transcend103 15:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we need more than just one web site listing it as a common term. Otherwise this article would be nothing but cutesy names made up by some random blogger or home game host. I've never heard it and have played holdem all over the place. SmartGuy 19:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK I just did a google search and it comes up quite a bit, so maybe it does merit inclusion. SmartGuy 19:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should finally afd this article, as Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide. There are literally hundreds, thousands even, of terms that could be included in a slang guide. We only need an article that is a glossary of terms used in articles, so the poker terms one should be pared down to that and this one put to a merciful death asap. 2005 20:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with 2005 that Wikipedia is not here to provide a comprehensive list of every slang term that's in use on the web. I recommend that we only use terms that are genuinely notable and verifiable, meaning that they've shown up in multiple books or articles. As for other names, we can provide a link or two to websites that *do* seem to want to list every term in existence, and that should be plenty. We may also want to think about moving this information out to wikibooks or wikia, which have lower standards for inclusion. --Elonka 20:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should afd this article just yet. I will agree, however, that the repeated additions/reversions of vanity nicknames are a colossal waste of time and cyberspace. SmartGuy 20:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What if the article changed directions to be more historical? I came from Dead Man's Hand and I thought there were a lot more like that (Old West or older and emphasis on unique full hands) whereas this seems to be about more modern terms, especially for Texas Hold 'Em rather than more traditional games. - Callowschoolboy 14:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff that can probably be removed[edit]

I'm listing here the names/nicknames that I do not commonly hear. I think that we can start removing from the article terms that are no longer in common use or are not widely used.

For starters, I would question the following:

Q-Mop Squeezer
J-Knave, Valet
9-Nina Ross
7-Mullet
2-Quacker

Quad aces - 4 Pips
KKK-Alabama Knight Riders
AAAA-Four Pips
Outside straight draw - Bobtail

AA-Two Pips
AK-Machine gun/Russian Steel
AJ-Jackass
A2-Drinking age
KK-Elvis Pressley, King Kong
KJ-King John
K3-Three Kings
Q9-Quinine
JJ-Kid Dynomite
J6-Railroad Hand
96-Dinner for two
88-Infinites
76-Trombones
44-Midlife Crisis
42-Jack Bauer
22-Swans

SmartGuy 21:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for any one person to judge what is or isn't in "common use": I hear "Mop Squeezer", "Nina Ross", and "Dinner for two" pretty regularly, primarily because of regular players at my club. Other clubs and casinos probably have their share of favorites. I think the best we can do is our current standard: require some reasonable attestation. I might remove "Knave" and "Valet" because those aren't really slang, they're standard terms for the Jack in other places. --LDC
I'd get rid of all of them, even though mop squeezer, dinner for two and quinine are very common. There are many, many very common expressions used by hundreds of people locally all over the world that may be interesting in a slang-y way, but that isn't the mission of the encyclopedia. The article should be deleted, or just left to attract every bit of drivel. The other alternative is a specific threshold, say 1000 Google mentions. The article's primary value now is sitting here as a junk magnet, which saves from polluting the terms article and making a lot of afd's of vanity articles, but still WP:NOT is pretty clear. We aren't here to explain slang. We do need to explain technical terms required to read articles. Every slang bit from Big Slick on down is not within the scope of the stated policy of the encyclopedia. 2005 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend requiring citation in a reasonably reliable secondary source. I.e. a reputible poker magazine (bluff, card player) or online site (pokerpages, etc). --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about what we've personally heard of, it's what can be verified. If there are no reliable secondary sources for a name, delete it. It can always be added back in later if someone finds sources for it. --Elonka 23:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that is no solution. In fact it makes the problem worse. It is EASY to cite hundreds of extra terms from normally reliable sources, and even easier to cite from somepokersite.com. Individually citing these entries is just an invitation to spam somecrappokersite.com. The point is these items should NOT be cited. they should be in the Wiktionary, not here. The whole article is inappropriate, citing entries just makes it a spam target on top of a vanity one. Put another way, we could copy Weisenberg's enire book here, and cite every entry. What would be the point of that? This is not a dictionary. The article is inappropriate and unimportant... a link to a (new) Wiktionary page could be put on the poker terms page. That is really what is needed to fix the problem. 2005 23:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And therein lies the problem. Just look at the edit history of this article - over the past 500 edits, nothing of real value has been added. It's 99% additions of and reversions of vanity garbage. I'm going to go ahead and annihilate some of the more ridiculous entries from the list I made above. SmartGuy 12:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary sounds like a good solution, I'd support that. Especially since most of these names can't be given more than a single line description. --Elonka 23:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, rather than moan about the article any further, I have nominated it for deletion. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should these Redirect pages be added to the nomination? ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 21:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go a head a leave them for now. If the article is deleted the deleting admin should remove those pages too. If not, I'm sure there is some bot lurking around that will take care of them for us. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeebus this article attracts so much vanity nonsense bullshiiiite. Half of those redirects originally referred to vanity entries that are no longer included in this article, so I speedy tagged some of them. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 16:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"bizarre citations"[edit]

What is so bizarre about About.com and PokerWords.com? Λυδαcιτγ 06:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cited multiple individual words in the same line with the same citation. A single reference is preferable over 25 or more citations of invidivual words. Citations are for statements/facts, not something for multiple individual words in an article. Of course it just points out why this thing should not exist in the first place. I left the About link as a reference. The other one was just an anoymous website and there is no reason to cite that versus any of a thousand other websites offering the same lists. 2005 06:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep this article protected[edit]

I would think this article's edit history makes a pretty strong case for maintaining the protected status. —Kymacpherson 17:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think it expires in the next day or two. I'll request extended protection at that point. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 17:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion debate and no consensus.[edit]

So, I spoke to the closing admin about this article. I'm not sure I follow his reasoning, but the gist is if one of us gets up the energy to move this to wiktionary, it can then be speedied. So, if anyone wants to do that, we can get rid of this article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have moved all single card names (the first section) to wiktionary. I will work on the other sections, but please feel free to chip in. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kzollman. The original closing admin acted at best irrationally, and now the wikilawyers are all over things. The solution now seems to be to move any content to Wiktionary and just redirect this article to the list of poker terms, where we should add a single sentence, something like: "Besides the terms listed here, there are thousands of common and uncommon slang names for poker hands."
Go for it. Since the debate was closed with no consensus, I requested that this article be protected. No dice, with the reason given that there was not enough recent disruptive activity. No shit, the temp protection just expired the other day. I say move away. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 23:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working my way through the hold'em hands now. This sucks... but at least we can be rid of the article soon. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'm only copying those terms that are in the references cited in the article. I think this is warranted. If this article were to be kept, we should remove them as uncited from this article anyway. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This version with inline citations may be useful. Have you created a Wiktionary entry or are you going to finish first? Λυδαcιτγ 19:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm moving each term to an appropriate wiktionary entry, see, e.g. wiktionary:big slick. They have category schemes like we do, see wiktionary:Category:Poker. We could also create an Appendix of poker terms there, although I'm not sure it's necessary because of the category. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw you were moving word by word, I was afraid I couldn't be much help because I'm not familiar with the Wikitionary. I thought this could just be moved as an article. Your way is better for Wiktionary, but harder for you, so thanks for doing it. I look forward to this mess being one line on the glossary article (which will need some work next since it has slang in it too like z-game, etc.) 2005 23:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added {{Copy to Wiktionary}} to the top of the article. --M2Ys4U (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You da man. great work. 2005 03:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_slang_names_for_poker_hands&oldid=1203590110"