This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Go (game) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
![]() | Go (game) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 13, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Consensus for this article is to use CE/BCE convention for dates. See discussion. |
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2013, when it received 9,180,678 views. |
NOTE: See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Sports,_games,_and_other_activities
There are occasional, conventionalized variances, e.g.:
- The names of standard chess openings are capitalized (Queen's Gambit, Neo-Grünfeld Defence).[j]
- The name of the game Go is capitalized.[k]
JohnRussell ( talk) 00:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
I've noticed that this article always capitalizes the "g" in "go" even in cases where it is not being used as part of a proper name or the first word of a sentence. Is this based upon something in the MOS or is it simply common convention? Other game articles, such those for chess, backgammon, checkers, card games, etc., do not capitalize the first letter when the word is being used as a common noun and I think this is consistent with commonly accepted rules for capitalization. So, in my opinion, "I play go" is correct while "I play Go" is not for exactly the same reasons that "I play poker" is correct and "I play Poker" is not.
Is "go" being capitalized because it is a foreign word or for emphasis? If that's the case, then I think it's better to use italics instead such as "I play go."
Is there concern that people will mistake "go" (the game) for "go" (the verb)? I guess that's possible if no context was provided at all, but since the article is about "go" (the game) that seems a little bit unlikely.
I am interested in this because I am currently working on some articles about shogi. "Shogi" is also a foreign word and is also a board game. "Shogi" is capitalized when it is part of a proper name, e.g., the Japan Shogi Association, or used to begin a sentence, but otherwise it is typically not. So, I am trying to understand how it is different from "go". Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
To me it seems like a pretty weak thing to do. People ought to get over that noun/verb conclusion about one second after they learn that it's the name of the game. 58.250.175.74 ( talk) 13:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
it's unusual to capitalize go". Have you considered why you think so? As you said, you are "
not an expert in this,", it is just your "
impression reading older books." In brief, you are not acquainted with the voluminous Go literature, else you would know that this is not at all unusual.
an American thing", it is an English (language) "thing". Second, it is not a matter of marking "foreignenss", as the foreign word it comes from is actually the Japanese Igo. For which Smith used "Go". And for sure, many English-spoeaking Go players would prefer "igo", but it seems that many Chinese and Korean players prefer an English term over the Japanese. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
See also #Is it "Go" or "go" mid-sentence? below. — Tonymec ( talk) 09:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Last sentence in the lead compares the number of legal board positions (est. 2 x 10^170) to the number of atoms in the universe (est. perhaps 10^85). This is an utterly absurd comparison, considering one number is roughly the square of the other. One might instead imagine replacing each atom by an entire universe; then the total number of atoms would be comparable (but of course that would be too complicated a statement to put in the article). Really, the number is so vast nobody gets any wiser by such an idle comparison. I think it should simply be deleted (but my recent deletion has been reverted).
PS. The comparison reads:
which of course is a true statement. Also, a book source is given. I still find it absurd.
PPS. It might be compared to some other combinatorial result. E.g., 107! = 1,2 x 10^170 is the number of distinct sequences into which you can arrange 107 numbered cards. Still, that might not make anyone any wiser (and then, it doesn't sound so impressive, does it?)-- Nø ( talk) 16:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
The Sensei's Library go wiki page also says "The number of possible go games is extremely large. It is often compared to the number of atoms in the universe ([ext] around 10^80), but it is in fact much much larger" https://senseis.xmp.net/?NumberOfPossibleGoGames JohnRussell ( talk) 02:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
The first photograph under History, showing a Sui Dynasty board, is labeled "19x19". Unless my counting is misguided, I think it is a 17x17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.130.160 ( talk) 10:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Is there a website that provides shared Go boards for teaching? The article doesn't seem to say. By 'teaching' I mean a board that works like a real board: one can play stones of any color and remove stones freely, for teaching purposes. I've been searching the Web and I can't find such a website. Teaching can be done at OGS and KGS, but apparently not freely as with a real board but only as real (but unrated) games with review afterward. David Spector ( talk) 00:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
WV now has voy:Go which emphasizes travel-related things like museums about the game & places to buy equipment. It could use contributions or comments. In particular, most of the places it mentions are in China or Japan & contributions about Korea are needed; see voy:Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#Does_anyone_know_about_Korean_baduk?. Pashley ( talk) 13:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
"Standard byoyomi: After the main time is depleted,"
1. I think the spelling is "byo-yomi".
2. I think there is no timing method called "standard byo-yomi". The standard timing method for many matches is called "byo-yomi" as opposed to Simple, Absolute, Fischer, or Canadian.
3. What is main time? Is it accumulated time for all moves by the player in question so far, or the time elapsed for the current move by the player in question?
There is no reason why a description of timing methods cannot be clear and understandable by anyone, IMO. David Spector ( talk) 15:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is inconsistent in its use of BC/AD vs. BCE/CE for dates. Personally, I prefer BCE/CE, but the original convention used in the article (as far back as 2007 anyway) appears to be BC/AD. The History section used BC for dates. I propose converting the BCE references to CEBC and the CE references to AD to be consistent and to respect the originally adopted convention. Any reason not to make this change?
Coastside (
talk)
16:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC) 16:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@ DavidWBrooks: I deleted the hat note and you reverted my delete.
In the revision comment I pointed out that the page is not ambiguous and pointed to policy at WP:NOTAMB. Did you read my explanation and did you read WP:NOTAMB before reverting?. This is exactly the scenario described there. A reader who is following links within Wikipedia is unlikely to end up at Go (game) if they were looking for other meanings of Go. By contrast, it would make sense to include a hat note linking to Go (disambiguation) if this article on the game were titled "Go" as the primary topic and someone looking for another meaning of "Go" wound up here. In that case, a hat note would be helpful. See a description of this at WP:Hatnote § Linking to a disambiguation page. Since this article is not the primary topic and the title has a qualified name "(game)" in parentheses, there is no chance someone will arrive at this article looking for another article about "Go". In short, the title of this article is not ambiguous and no hat note is necessary. Your explanation that the hat note "tells readers where to find other things called 'go' - the (disambiguation) terminology is not obvious to casual readers", doesn't follow convention. By that logic, every page with a qualified title should point to the disambiguation page, and that's not convention. Given my explanation, I'd like to delete the unnecessary hat note, unless you can point to some relevant policy or have a more compelling reason to keep it. Coastside ( talk) 05:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Just a minor point ... I appreciate Coastside's recent correction of a technical term being signaled by both italics and quotation marks. (That had been bugging me too.) But this raises a more important question. Currently, the first use of some terms are signaled by quotation marks and some by italics. I'd make the correction, but I'm not sure which is preferred. Or perhaps both have different purposes? -- seberle ( talk) 05:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Why is the name of the article Go and not Weiqi if the game is originally from China? In the etymology section there's no explanation as to why the Japanese word is being preferred over the Chinese name
177.225.149.138 ( talk) 21:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
My board is 18 x 18 squares. (324 squares) why is that? I have seen 19 x 19 but not 18 x 18 Regards Shelley 49.197.61.18 ( talk) 04:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
And it should be noted that 9x9 is not just for beginners. Even professionals sometimes play on 9x9. -- seberle ( talk) 03:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
The article includes this nice image. It would be nice if someone could add a bit to the caption about what we're looking at, and why he's slicing that board like a birthday cake. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Go (board game and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Go (board game until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
It’s cultural appropriation to term abstract 71.178.33.122 ( talk) 11:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Robert92107 has made several recent edits. Most are excellent and really improve the article. Thank you!
I'm not sure about the ko explanation. But then again, I don't really like the previous explanation either. The article used to read:
A non-player will probably find this confusing since they won't know about ko fights. So it's good that there was an attempt to edit it. It now reads:
I'm not sure the comparison to chess is helpful. Instead of "identifying" a ko, why not just state the simple rule that a board position cannot be repeated? We still need to stay away from references to ko fights until the rule is clear.
I'll try to make an edit, but feel free to improve it if my attempt fails as well! seberle ( talk) 16:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Also, the reference to sente may be confusing for the casual reader trying to understand ko for the first time.-- seberle ( talk) 16:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re explaining ko in the two following descriptions:
[a] Players are not allowed to repeat a stone capturing move in the immediately prior position.
[b, current] Players are not allowed to make a move that returns the game to the immediately prior position.
I do not like [b]. It technically is correct, but what is meant seems a bit opaque to a beginner because of the odd terminology ("returns the game to the immediately prior position"). The objection to [a], that stone capturing is not part of the ko rule is actually incorrect. Ko is ALL about when a stone/group can be captured and when it must be left alone! Making this situation explicit I believes make the explanation much clearer. (I also tried to show this more understandably, step by step, in the graphic example.)
The question is, does anyone else have a better explanation in a one sentence lead-in? Or other opinions? Robert92107 ( talk) 05:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
Go (game has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 8 § Go (game until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
01:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Go (game) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
![]() | Go (game) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 13, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Consensus for this article is to use CE/BCE convention for dates. See discussion. |
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2013, when it received 9,180,678 views. |
NOTE: See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Sports,_games,_and_other_activities
There are occasional, conventionalized variances, e.g.:
- The names of standard chess openings are capitalized (Queen's Gambit, Neo-Grünfeld Defence).[j]
- The name of the game Go is capitalized.[k]
JohnRussell ( talk) 00:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
I've noticed that this article always capitalizes the "g" in "go" even in cases where it is not being used as part of a proper name or the first word of a sentence. Is this based upon something in the MOS or is it simply common convention? Other game articles, such those for chess, backgammon, checkers, card games, etc., do not capitalize the first letter when the word is being used as a common noun and I think this is consistent with commonly accepted rules for capitalization. So, in my opinion, "I play go" is correct while "I play Go" is not for exactly the same reasons that "I play poker" is correct and "I play Poker" is not.
Is "go" being capitalized because it is a foreign word or for emphasis? If that's the case, then I think it's better to use italics instead such as "I play go."
Is there concern that people will mistake "go" (the game) for "go" (the verb)? I guess that's possible if no context was provided at all, but since the article is about "go" (the game) that seems a little bit unlikely.
I am interested in this because I am currently working on some articles about shogi. "Shogi" is also a foreign word and is also a board game. "Shogi" is capitalized when it is part of a proper name, e.g., the Japan Shogi Association, or used to begin a sentence, but otherwise it is typically not. So, I am trying to understand how it is different from "go". Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
To me it seems like a pretty weak thing to do. People ought to get over that noun/verb conclusion about one second after they learn that it's the name of the game. 58.250.175.74 ( talk) 13:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
it's unusual to capitalize go". Have you considered why you think so? As you said, you are "
not an expert in this,", it is just your "
impression reading older books." In brief, you are not acquainted with the voluminous Go literature, else you would know that this is not at all unusual.
an American thing", it is an English (language) "thing". Second, it is not a matter of marking "foreignenss", as the foreign word it comes from is actually the Japanese Igo. For which Smith used "Go". And for sure, many English-spoeaking Go players would prefer "igo", but it seems that many Chinese and Korean players prefer an English term over the Japanese. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
See also #Is it "Go" or "go" mid-sentence? below. — Tonymec ( talk) 09:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Last sentence in the lead compares the number of legal board positions (est. 2 x 10^170) to the number of atoms in the universe (est. perhaps 10^85). This is an utterly absurd comparison, considering one number is roughly the square of the other. One might instead imagine replacing each atom by an entire universe; then the total number of atoms would be comparable (but of course that would be too complicated a statement to put in the article). Really, the number is so vast nobody gets any wiser by such an idle comparison. I think it should simply be deleted (but my recent deletion has been reverted).
PS. The comparison reads:
which of course is a true statement. Also, a book source is given. I still find it absurd.
PPS. It might be compared to some other combinatorial result. E.g., 107! = 1,2 x 10^170 is the number of distinct sequences into which you can arrange 107 numbered cards. Still, that might not make anyone any wiser (and then, it doesn't sound so impressive, does it?)-- Nø ( talk) 16:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
The Sensei's Library go wiki page also says "The number of possible go games is extremely large. It is often compared to the number of atoms in the universe ([ext] around 10^80), but it is in fact much much larger" https://senseis.xmp.net/?NumberOfPossibleGoGames JohnRussell ( talk) 02:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
The first photograph under History, showing a Sui Dynasty board, is labeled "19x19". Unless my counting is misguided, I think it is a 17x17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.130.160 ( talk) 10:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Is there a website that provides shared Go boards for teaching? The article doesn't seem to say. By 'teaching' I mean a board that works like a real board: one can play stones of any color and remove stones freely, for teaching purposes. I've been searching the Web and I can't find such a website. Teaching can be done at OGS and KGS, but apparently not freely as with a real board but only as real (but unrated) games with review afterward. David Spector ( talk) 00:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
WV now has voy:Go which emphasizes travel-related things like museums about the game & places to buy equipment. It could use contributions or comments. In particular, most of the places it mentions are in China or Japan & contributions about Korea are needed; see voy:Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#Does_anyone_know_about_Korean_baduk?. Pashley ( talk) 13:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
"Standard byoyomi: After the main time is depleted,"
1. I think the spelling is "byo-yomi".
2. I think there is no timing method called "standard byo-yomi". The standard timing method for many matches is called "byo-yomi" as opposed to Simple, Absolute, Fischer, or Canadian.
3. What is main time? Is it accumulated time for all moves by the player in question so far, or the time elapsed for the current move by the player in question?
There is no reason why a description of timing methods cannot be clear and understandable by anyone, IMO. David Spector ( talk) 15:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is inconsistent in its use of BC/AD vs. BCE/CE for dates. Personally, I prefer BCE/CE, but the original convention used in the article (as far back as 2007 anyway) appears to be BC/AD. The History section used BC for dates. I propose converting the BCE references to CEBC and the CE references to AD to be consistent and to respect the originally adopted convention. Any reason not to make this change?
Coastside (
talk)
16:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC) 16:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@ DavidWBrooks: I deleted the hat note and you reverted my delete.
In the revision comment I pointed out that the page is not ambiguous and pointed to policy at WP:NOTAMB. Did you read my explanation and did you read WP:NOTAMB before reverting?. This is exactly the scenario described there. A reader who is following links within Wikipedia is unlikely to end up at Go (game) if they were looking for other meanings of Go. By contrast, it would make sense to include a hat note linking to Go (disambiguation) if this article on the game were titled "Go" as the primary topic and someone looking for another meaning of "Go" wound up here. In that case, a hat note would be helpful. See a description of this at WP:Hatnote § Linking to a disambiguation page. Since this article is not the primary topic and the title has a qualified name "(game)" in parentheses, there is no chance someone will arrive at this article looking for another article about "Go". In short, the title of this article is not ambiguous and no hat note is necessary. Your explanation that the hat note "tells readers where to find other things called 'go' - the (disambiguation) terminology is not obvious to casual readers", doesn't follow convention. By that logic, every page with a qualified title should point to the disambiguation page, and that's not convention. Given my explanation, I'd like to delete the unnecessary hat note, unless you can point to some relevant policy or have a more compelling reason to keep it. Coastside ( talk) 05:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Just a minor point ... I appreciate Coastside's recent correction of a technical term being signaled by both italics and quotation marks. (That had been bugging me too.) But this raises a more important question. Currently, the first use of some terms are signaled by quotation marks and some by italics. I'd make the correction, but I'm not sure which is preferred. Or perhaps both have different purposes? -- seberle ( talk) 05:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Why is the name of the article Go and not Weiqi if the game is originally from China? In the etymology section there's no explanation as to why the Japanese word is being preferred over the Chinese name
177.225.149.138 ( talk) 21:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
My board is 18 x 18 squares. (324 squares) why is that? I have seen 19 x 19 but not 18 x 18 Regards Shelley 49.197.61.18 ( talk) 04:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
And it should be noted that 9x9 is not just for beginners. Even professionals sometimes play on 9x9. -- seberle ( talk) 03:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
The article includes this nice image. It would be nice if someone could add a bit to the caption about what we're looking at, and why he's slicing that board like a birthday cake. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Go (board game and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Go (board game until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
It’s cultural appropriation to term abstract 71.178.33.122 ( talk) 11:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Robert92107 has made several recent edits. Most are excellent and really improve the article. Thank you!
I'm not sure about the ko explanation. But then again, I don't really like the previous explanation either. The article used to read:
A non-player will probably find this confusing since they won't know about ko fights. So it's good that there was an attempt to edit it. It now reads:
I'm not sure the comparison to chess is helpful. Instead of "identifying" a ko, why not just state the simple rule that a board position cannot be repeated? We still need to stay away from references to ko fights until the rule is clear.
I'll try to make an edit, but feel free to improve it if my attempt fails as well! seberle ( talk) 16:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Also, the reference to sente may be confusing for the casual reader trying to understand ko for the first time.-- seberle ( talk) 16:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re explaining ko in the two following descriptions:
[a] Players are not allowed to repeat a stone capturing move in the immediately prior position.
[b, current] Players are not allowed to make a move that returns the game to the immediately prior position.
I do not like [b]. It technically is correct, but what is meant seems a bit opaque to a beginner because of the odd terminology ("returns the game to the immediately prior position"). The objection to [a], that stone capturing is not part of the ko rule is actually incorrect. Ko is ALL about when a stone/group can be captured and when it must be left alone! Making this situation explicit I believes make the explanation much clearer. (I also tried to show this more understandably, step by step, in the graphic example.)
The question is, does anyone else have a better explanation in a one sentence lead-in? Or other opinions? Robert92107 ( talk) 05:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
Go (game has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 8 § Go (game until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
01:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)