![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
Is the caption to the first diagram at Fork (chess) too long? I don't think that the diagram is meant to be an actual position, I think it is to illustrate two forks. The caption goes on and on as if it were intended to be an actual position. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Most (all?) issues of the historic "Wiener Schachzeitung" (Viennese chess newspaper) are now online, courtesy of the National Library of Austria. Time for an article, no?
(from Portal_talk:Chess) -- 71.174.165.23 ( talk) 07:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Created the article FIDE Grand Prix 2012–2013 and a template at the bottom of the site. Feel free to add info, references or correct anything. They seem biannually now, there are future ones on the FIDE calendar too. - Koppapa ( talk) 09:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Request moved from User talk:DrTrigon to this page in order to find a consensus:
Hello DrTrigon,
In your code for FideID= in template {{Infobox chess player}}, a timestamp is generated after the rating, to look like this:
2780 (August 2012)
Is it possible to change it, to look instead like this?:
2780 (August 2012)
Previously, it's been common practice to express both FIDE rating timestamp and Peak rating timestamp in the <small> font, so, many Peak rating data in Infoboxes still have this. If FideID= can be changed, then the two timestamp presentations can match again (i.e. have consistent appearance).
Thanks for your consider! Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 11:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
except you have a good idea how to solve such double-brackets in general? (keep in mind that the first bracket comes from the template)2780 (August 2012) (other stuff)
to something like this:FIDE rating ......... 2780 (September 2012)
.......................... (No. 4 in the May 2012 FIDE World Rankings)
or like this:FIDE rating ......... 2780 (September 2012)
FIDE ranking ....... No. 4 in world (May 2012)
or this:FIDE rating ......... 2780 (September 2012)
FIDE ranking ....... World No. 4 (May 2012)
or this:FIDE rating .............. 2780 (September 2012)
FIDE world ranking ... No. 4 (May 2012)
(Again, I don't know why this can't already be the case, since there is already "ranking=" parm in the chess biography infobox [doc file, but not the template code apparently].) Ok, Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 21:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)FIDE rating ................ 2780 (September 2012)
FIDE World Ranking ... No. 4 (May 2012)
The BLP seems heavy on promotion of its subject, and I doubt meets GNG too. ( User:Fae observed same at article Talk.) I won't submit AfD but w/ !vote 'delete' if there is one. Ok, Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 06:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Somehow got to presuming was standard to have infobox on chess bio articles, and that an article with lead photo only, say, was somehow incompleted. So have been adding infoboxes. Now have discovered WP:Disinfoboxes! (Saying don't add unless contributes something not in article body.) A clear case (for me) was article Vasja Pirc. (Is article better without infobox or with infobox?) Would like to know what others think. (Is infobox standard/desirable for chess bios? Or case-by-case and only if contributes something? Almost always the info in the infobox is repeated from the chess bio article lead, etc., so by the WP:Disinfoboxes criteria it seems there would be very few infoboxes ever needed for chess bios.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 21:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I see the infobox produces calculated age (death date minus birth date), and that info is usually not contained in bio article bodies. (But does that piece of info, age, warrant application of the infoboxes?) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 21:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedbacks. (I like too, how the box computes age for living & past personalities, which I think is always interesting & important info about a player. And of course the programmed calc is always more reliable & less burdensome than a manual one.) I think the essay is right that a box creates essentially a "mini-article" separate from main article (which is consistent w/ Quale regarding the main article should stand on its own), but I don't think the box has to "compete" w/ the main article as the essay suggests, nor be "erroneous" or "misleading" if the info is added carefully.
I wanted to be sure about what others thought; the essay does come down pretty hard on unnecessary use, and on editors who use them (to whit & for the record!):
Disinfoboxes tend to be the product of editors interested in uniformity across the encyclopedia over the consideration of what best serves an individual article. These editors are not interested in evaluating the merit or potential usefulness of an infobox within a particular article but are rather interested in placing infoboxes en masse for their apparent professional visual appeal. The result is that these editors often add infoboxes to articles that they have not significantly contributed to or even necessarily accurately comprehended. // So once again we have a "disinfobox" that aggressively attracts the marginally literate eye with apparent promises to contain a reductive summary of information that can't be neatly contained. That promise however is false because the lead already provides a much more effective reductive summary. Like a bulleted list, or a time-line that substitutes for genuine history, this disinfobox offers a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance that is a poor substitute for accuracy and complexity.
Ok, Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 05:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
An edit was made to World Chess Championship 1921 today in the scores. But the score for round 3 is definitely wrong (a draw and a loss). Can someone correct the round-by-round scores? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The following is from the draw by agreement talk page. It probably applies to all diagrams. I have no idea as how to fix it.
The alt tags are all fscked up - this is what it looks like in a text-only browser:
Reshevsky vs. Mastichiadis, Dubrovnik 1950 Solid white.svg a b c d e f g h Solid white.svg 8 black king black king black bishop black king black rook black king black king black king 8 7 black king black pawn black king black knight black queen black pawn black king black king 7 6 black king black king black pawn black king black king black king black pawn black pawn 6 5 black king white pawn black king black pawn black king black king black king black king 5 4 black king black king black king white pawn black king black king black knight black king 4 3 black king black king white knight white bishop white pawn white knight white pawn black king 3 2 black king white queen black king black king black king white pawn white pawn black king 2 1 white rook black king black king black king black king black king white king black king 1 Solid white.svg a b c d e f g h Solid white.svg
Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
<img alt=" black king" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Chess_l45.svg/26px-Chess_l45.svg.png" width="26" height="26">
|link=
to fit with
alt text guidelines.|link=
". [Correction: gave " black king|link=
", the template is now updated.] (This text gets added into [[File:...|alt=...]]
to set the alt text and add the link.) Someone who understands templates should find this even easier to fix than the missing square. The square fix is probably essential too, as the alt text without the square isn't really very useful to screen readers or accessibility technologies.
Quale (
talk)
04:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Note, as well as the alt tags, I noticed a problem with the white knight on light squares icons (the ones 'nll' in their filenames). They're just blank for me. On I think every board I saw. (So a problem with the icon itself?) Fatphil ( talk) 13:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Chess_nll45.svg/45px-Chess_nll45.svg.png And the reason it doesn't show up can be found right ^^^^ here.
No diagram works properly at book's project, like Chess variants. Does any one knows why? OTAVIO1981 ( talk) 14:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
There is an editor that is removing links to Chessgames player profiles (e.g. WikiProject Chess/Archive 23 player profile and games at Chessgames.com ) saying that they are spam and not reliable. Is this correct? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read the policy. Firstly, the site makes its money from traffic. Links from here are a good way to boost that cash flow. Wikipedia should not be used for such a purpose without merit. As the site requires a java plugin, it falls, very clearly, into the to normally be avoided category. It is also a chat/discussion forum, which again means it should normally be avoided. As it is in WP:BLP in a high number of cases, the site should be considered to be of high quality - it is not of high quality. Anyone can add crap there, and anyone does add crap there. There is no guarantee that the content in this site is accurate. It does not, therefore, offer any significant or beneficial value to the reader. There are other sources available, and these should be prefered.-- Lecale42 ( talk) 13:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
-- Lecale42 ( talk) 15:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
This stubborn resistance surprises me. Firstly, an external link should not be a source. A proper, reliable source should be referenced. I think we agree that Chessgames.com does not form the basis of a reliable source, as defined by wikipedia. (Don't blame me for that.) As such, I see the only merit to be the games of any chess player, and here, lets cut the website some slack and assume that these games are accurate records and not breaking copyright restrictions with any of the comments. Now, under that assumption, lets skip through the reasons to not choose the site as an external link.
1. 1.Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. MATCH. Chessgames is clearly not a unique resource for a player's games.
4.Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See external link spamming. POSSIBLE MATCH. If I were the owner of that site, i'd love to have wikipedia provide links to it
5.Links to individual web pages[4] that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services. POSSIBLE MATCH. There is a LOT of advertising material displaying on these pages.
8.Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See rich media for more details. MATCH. It absolutely requires a java plugin.
10.Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists. 11.Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) 12.Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked treating 10-12 as a group: POSSIBLE MATCH, you can make reasonable arguments that Chessgames.com fits into all these categories.
Per BLP, as the site will sometimes contain comments slagging off the owner, it also FAILS on that point.
Now I can understand that a lot of you probably like and use that site, however that is not a valid reason to go against wikipedia policy. As outlined above, it clearly matches up with several reasons for not being included as an external link. What should the consequences of that be? -- Lecale42 ( talk) 17:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The EL does not specify that the 'unique resource' must be located on the internet. Given that, it is abundantly clear that this is not a unique resource. There are other games collections out there. Commercial ones for instance. Therefore, how on earth can you honestly and seriously argue that this is a unique resource? In fact, you don't. The argument is basically that somebody made a chessgames template, and you want to keep using it.
When I visit the source I am met with a message "java plug-in" out of date. Which suggests to me that it uses by default a java plug in. I see there is a text link. Fair enough, it can escape on that point.
I object to visiting websites that instantly try to sell me something. 2 adverts is objectionable to me. The content you are externally linking to includes 3 sections (as I understand it) [1] A profile, which is basically useless in most instances as it is blank. [2] A collection of games, which may or may not be accurate, and is certainly not unique. [3] A forum, which contains potentially offensive comments, directly against WP:BLP. The site is marketed as a community. We have above, claims that it effectively operates as a wiki/fansite, ( a collective engaging in amateur, possibly original, research.) If you want to argue why "More than just a database, we're also a community." isn't an admission of social networking, I'll listen patiently. Or "Chessgames.com is the perfect place to advertise your chess tournaments, products, and services." doesn't indicate that is commercial and highly desiring a huge traffic and search engine boost from a wikipedia project linking every player to the site, i'll listen.-- Lecale42 ( talk) 18:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Lecale42 seems to be throwing every absurd argument he can think of at Chessgames, no matter how incorrect and irrelevant, in the hopes that one sticks. So far, we've heard
Assuming good faith, the problem here is the idea that non-Internet secondary sources for chess history are readily available and accurate. Neither is true. I have found ten times as many errors in a published book called "American Chess Masters from Morphy to Fischer" than I have in the entire Chessgames site put together. Frequently, when discrepancies arose in terms of dates and game scores, guess who was actually correct? Chessgames. If you want some specific examples, I am more than happy to provide them. ChessPlayerLev ( talk) 23:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Chessgames doesn't provide any biographical information at all on Steve Giddins. You are linking to a forum, and to a database which contains games which can be found elsewhere on the web. Sorry if that's too sensible for you Bubba. If the games are not unique, it doesn't fit with wikipedia policy. That's so what. Sorry to try to stay on topic with wikipedia policy. Where is the proof on the accuracy of biographical detail on chessgames.com? I don't see it anywhere in the wikipedia article? Original research on your part?-- Lecale42 ( talk) 23:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Bubba, if you are serious, try searching in google. https://www.google.fr/search?q=online+chess+database&aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=11&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Somebody's date of birth being mentioned (but not to the standards of wikipedia verifiablity) on a webpage do not qualify it as an external link. Granted, you can tenuously call that biographical detail/info, but it's pretty damn slim by anyone's measure. It barely advances on the information already linked to from the FIDE player card. As for "proof", all we are looking at here is wikipedia's own standards, which the site doesn't meet. I didn't write those standards, so don't but bug me if you don't like them. Comments and ads are there (Every page has 4 adverts by the way. 2 placed via cookie info, 1 for the host website, 1 for premium membership of the site.), you should not link to anything that may contain inappropriate material cf Biography policy. If that includes 99% of webpages out there, don't blame me, blame wikipedia policy. -- Lecale42 ( talk) 17:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Would someone look at recent edits to Ponziani Opening? The editor says that he wrote a book on the Ponziani, but his edits call things "hogwash", he puts things in wrong places, and some edits seem POV, and no references. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 13:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The "List of chess books" pages ( List of chess books (A–F), List of chess books (G–L), List of chess books (M–S), List of chess books (T–Z)) are being discussed at WT:NOT#Does this run afoul of WP:NOTDIR?. The concern is that they aren't appropriate for a Wikipedia article. I've always thought this list does not belong in article namespace, although I've been too lazy to actually try to do anything about it. If they are thought to be important then I would recommend putting them in the project namespace. (I don't actually think the list is important or useful either. There are over 10,000 chess books written in English, and I don't see any reason that the list shouldn't include chess books in other languages. The list is too indiscriminate.) Quale ( talk) 16:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
What sense does it make to call something an "unforced error" in chess? Tennis has forced errors and unforced errors, but chess?. Pal Benko uses the term in his column in the October 2012 Chess Life (p. 44, first paragraph) and it was used in an article on the Susan Polgar blog a week or so ago. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I can't figure out where and how to propose an article to be promoted in class. Can someone please explain how it works to me? -- Rigas • Talk • Deeds • 08:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Does this player meets our notability standards? Sasata ( talk) 15:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Batsford Chess Endings by Speelman, et. al. says that two bishops versus a lone king win in 99.97% of the positions (see pawnless chess endings). If the starting position is a legal position with White to move, and the bishops on opposite colors, what is a position where the bishops can't force checkmate? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Julie Terry Lefèvre-Han - yet another hoax. MrsHudson ( talk) 13:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
In Alekhine's Defence, what is the significance of telling about the longest and shortest games with those variations? Bubba73 You talkin' to me?
Look at the discussions at Talk:Antichess and Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language and see if there's any need for a banner saying that gender-generic "he" is acceptable in chess articles. Georgia guy ( talk) 20:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Considering that I have had several disputes with Ihardlythinkso that went to the ANI, I'm well aware of who he is. This doesn't change the fact that on this topic, he is completely and irrevocably correct. It's not just "authors of chess literature" who use these personal pronouns, it's "the entire chess world". The idea that Wikipedia should ignore standard convention and "do their own thing" would be like WikiMath articles using a tilde in place of the standard plus sign in arithmetic. It's ridiculous, confusing, and unnecessary. By the way, notice the subtle shift in your questions. First, you asked whether there was a standard of using masculine personal pronouns in the chess literature. When you were informed that yes, there was, you started endlessly asking how and why this was so, two utterly irrelevant questions when talking about notation or naming conventions. ChessPlayerLev ( talk) 01:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Georgia guy, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me like you’re objecting to the standard use of “he” in chess because you believe that chess writers/players don’t care about sex neutrality and equality, or possibly actively work against it. This is pure speculation, and it’s entirely non-productive and not germane to this discussion. Until and unless there’s a news report on the chess world systematically oppressing female players, don’t try and ascribe motives to it. (Apologies if this comes off as flippant or rude. I’m not trying to be; I’m just sleepy.) — Frungi ( talk) 06:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Does it say that it doesn't apply to chess anywhere?? Georgia guy ( talk) 13:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, not going to read everything that's been posted here since Georgia Guy seems to employ methods of communication that are designed to produce huge walls of text without accomplishing anything, but: isn't it obvious that this should just be handled on a case-by-case basis? If a given sentence or article can easily be made gender-neutral without having an important effect on clarity, let any editor who wants to, do that. If an edit to gender-neutrality results in a really unreadable sentence, then engage in good-faith attempts to find a compromise. At
antichess one user got so invested in fighting gender-neutral changes that s/he stopped bothering to actually consider whether or not they were actually harmful. A single instance of "his or her" or "she or he" in a sentence is totally innocuous; in a long section in which White and Black appear with gendered pronouns repeatedly, one can be called "he" and the other "she" with no loss of clarity or quality of writing; and some sentences can be easily and happily reworded in the passive voice (which already seems to be common on the small number of chess articles I've looked at, including Antichess). I don't see why anyone in this project should waste time making a banner about this, nor why anyone should feel obligated to switch gendered to neutral language if they don't want to, nor why anyone should treat this as anything other than a typical minor issue to be handled on a case-by-case basis.
(By the way, I professionally am a mathematician -- given the relative gender-imbalance in my field, I've tried to speak and write gender-neutrally when in the mathematical context. Typical readers really don't notice it at all, and a small number of people appreciate it. It's certainly not a burden on clear communication, but nor is it worth a lot of pointless bickering.) - JBL ( talk) 15:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Back to the main point: Should Wikipedia use the generic “he” in chess articles, or should we strive to ignore the sexes of the players? Or has this been discussed in the past and a consensus reached? — Frungi ( talk) 05:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed on the main point; that's why I didn't suggest the glossary. But I do feel that it ought to be explained somewhere, like in the Chess article or here on the WIkiProject—if only to dissuade objectors and avoid future misguided debates. Of course, this is merely my opinion. — Frungi ( talk) 10:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
Is the caption to the first diagram at Fork (chess) too long? I don't think that the diagram is meant to be an actual position, I think it is to illustrate two forks. The caption goes on and on as if it were intended to be an actual position. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Most (all?) issues of the historic "Wiener Schachzeitung" (Viennese chess newspaper) are now online, courtesy of the National Library of Austria. Time for an article, no?
(from Portal_talk:Chess) -- 71.174.165.23 ( talk) 07:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Created the article FIDE Grand Prix 2012–2013 and a template at the bottom of the site. Feel free to add info, references or correct anything. They seem biannually now, there are future ones on the FIDE calendar too. - Koppapa ( talk) 09:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Request moved from User talk:DrTrigon to this page in order to find a consensus:
Hello DrTrigon,
In your code for FideID= in template {{Infobox chess player}}, a timestamp is generated after the rating, to look like this:
2780 (August 2012)
Is it possible to change it, to look instead like this?:
2780 (August 2012)
Previously, it's been common practice to express both FIDE rating timestamp and Peak rating timestamp in the <small> font, so, many Peak rating data in Infoboxes still have this. If FideID= can be changed, then the two timestamp presentations can match again (i.e. have consistent appearance).
Thanks for your consider! Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 11:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
except you have a good idea how to solve such double-brackets in general? (keep in mind that the first bracket comes from the template)2780 (August 2012) (other stuff)
to something like this:FIDE rating ......... 2780 (September 2012)
.......................... (No. 4 in the May 2012 FIDE World Rankings)
or like this:FIDE rating ......... 2780 (September 2012)
FIDE ranking ....... No. 4 in world (May 2012)
or this:FIDE rating ......... 2780 (September 2012)
FIDE ranking ....... World No. 4 (May 2012)
or this:FIDE rating .............. 2780 (September 2012)
FIDE world ranking ... No. 4 (May 2012)
(Again, I don't know why this can't already be the case, since there is already "ranking=" parm in the chess biography infobox [doc file, but not the template code apparently].) Ok, Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 21:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)FIDE rating ................ 2780 (September 2012)
FIDE World Ranking ... No. 4 (May 2012)
The BLP seems heavy on promotion of its subject, and I doubt meets GNG too. ( User:Fae observed same at article Talk.) I won't submit AfD but w/ !vote 'delete' if there is one. Ok, Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 06:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Somehow got to presuming was standard to have infobox on chess bio articles, and that an article with lead photo only, say, was somehow incompleted. So have been adding infoboxes. Now have discovered WP:Disinfoboxes! (Saying don't add unless contributes something not in article body.) A clear case (for me) was article Vasja Pirc. (Is article better without infobox or with infobox?) Would like to know what others think. (Is infobox standard/desirable for chess bios? Or case-by-case and only if contributes something? Almost always the info in the infobox is repeated from the chess bio article lead, etc., so by the WP:Disinfoboxes criteria it seems there would be very few infoboxes ever needed for chess bios.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 21:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I see the infobox produces calculated age (death date minus birth date), and that info is usually not contained in bio article bodies. (But does that piece of info, age, warrant application of the infoboxes?) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 21:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedbacks. (I like too, how the box computes age for living & past personalities, which I think is always interesting & important info about a player. And of course the programmed calc is always more reliable & less burdensome than a manual one.) I think the essay is right that a box creates essentially a "mini-article" separate from main article (which is consistent w/ Quale regarding the main article should stand on its own), but I don't think the box has to "compete" w/ the main article as the essay suggests, nor be "erroneous" or "misleading" if the info is added carefully.
I wanted to be sure about what others thought; the essay does come down pretty hard on unnecessary use, and on editors who use them (to whit & for the record!):
Disinfoboxes tend to be the product of editors interested in uniformity across the encyclopedia over the consideration of what best serves an individual article. These editors are not interested in evaluating the merit or potential usefulness of an infobox within a particular article but are rather interested in placing infoboxes en masse for their apparent professional visual appeal. The result is that these editors often add infoboxes to articles that they have not significantly contributed to or even necessarily accurately comprehended. // So once again we have a "disinfobox" that aggressively attracts the marginally literate eye with apparent promises to contain a reductive summary of information that can't be neatly contained. That promise however is false because the lead already provides a much more effective reductive summary. Like a bulleted list, or a time-line that substitutes for genuine history, this disinfobox offers a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance that is a poor substitute for accuracy and complexity.
Ok, Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 05:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
An edit was made to World Chess Championship 1921 today in the scores. But the score for round 3 is definitely wrong (a draw and a loss). Can someone correct the round-by-round scores? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The following is from the draw by agreement talk page. It probably applies to all diagrams. I have no idea as how to fix it.
The alt tags are all fscked up - this is what it looks like in a text-only browser:
Reshevsky vs. Mastichiadis, Dubrovnik 1950 Solid white.svg a b c d e f g h Solid white.svg 8 black king black king black bishop black king black rook black king black king black king 8 7 black king black pawn black king black knight black queen black pawn black king black king 7 6 black king black king black pawn black king black king black king black pawn black pawn 6 5 black king white pawn black king black pawn black king black king black king black king 5 4 black king black king black king white pawn black king black king black knight black king 4 3 black king black king white knight white bishop white pawn white knight white pawn black king 3 2 black king white queen black king black king black king white pawn white pawn black king 2 1 white rook black king black king black king black king black king white king black king 1 Solid white.svg a b c d e f g h Solid white.svg
Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
<img alt=" black king" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Chess_l45.svg/26px-Chess_l45.svg.png" width="26" height="26">
|link=
to fit with
alt text guidelines.|link=
". [Correction: gave " black king|link=
", the template is now updated.] (This text gets added into [[File:...|alt=...]]
to set the alt text and add the link.) Someone who understands templates should find this even easier to fix than the missing square. The square fix is probably essential too, as the alt text without the square isn't really very useful to screen readers or accessibility technologies.
Quale (
talk)
04:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Note, as well as the alt tags, I noticed a problem with the white knight on light squares icons (the ones 'nll' in their filenames). They're just blank for me. On I think every board I saw. (So a problem with the icon itself?) Fatphil ( talk) 13:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Chess_nll45.svg/45px-Chess_nll45.svg.png And the reason it doesn't show up can be found right ^^^^ here.
No diagram works properly at book's project, like Chess variants. Does any one knows why? OTAVIO1981 ( talk) 14:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
There is an editor that is removing links to Chessgames player profiles (e.g. WikiProject Chess/Archive 23 player profile and games at Chessgames.com ) saying that they are spam and not reliable. Is this correct? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read the policy. Firstly, the site makes its money from traffic. Links from here are a good way to boost that cash flow. Wikipedia should not be used for such a purpose without merit. As the site requires a java plugin, it falls, very clearly, into the to normally be avoided category. It is also a chat/discussion forum, which again means it should normally be avoided. As it is in WP:BLP in a high number of cases, the site should be considered to be of high quality - it is not of high quality. Anyone can add crap there, and anyone does add crap there. There is no guarantee that the content in this site is accurate. It does not, therefore, offer any significant or beneficial value to the reader. There are other sources available, and these should be prefered.-- Lecale42 ( talk) 13:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
-- Lecale42 ( talk) 15:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
This stubborn resistance surprises me. Firstly, an external link should not be a source. A proper, reliable source should be referenced. I think we agree that Chessgames.com does not form the basis of a reliable source, as defined by wikipedia. (Don't blame me for that.) As such, I see the only merit to be the games of any chess player, and here, lets cut the website some slack and assume that these games are accurate records and not breaking copyright restrictions with any of the comments. Now, under that assumption, lets skip through the reasons to not choose the site as an external link.
1. 1.Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. MATCH. Chessgames is clearly not a unique resource for a player's games.
4.Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See external link spamming. POSSIBLE MATCH. If I were the owner of that site, i'd love to have wikipedia provide links to it
5.Links to individual web pages[4] that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services. POSSIBLE MATCH. There is a LOT of advertising material displaying on these pages.
8.Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See rich media for more details. MATCH. It absolutely requires a java plugin.
10.Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists. 11.Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) 12.Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked treating 10-12 as a group: POSSIBLE MATCH, you can make reasonable arguments that Chessgames.com fits into all these categories.
Per BLP, as the site will sometimes contain comments slagging off the owner, it also FAILS on that point.
Now I can understand that a lot of you probably like and use that site, however that is not a valid reason to go against wikipedia policy. As outlined above, it clearly matches up with several reasons for not being included as an external link. What should the consequences of that be? -- Lecale42 ( talk) 17:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The EL does not specify that the 'unique resource' must be located on the internet. Given that, it is abundantly clear that this is not a unique resource. There are other games collections out there. Commercial ones for instance. Therefore, how on earth can you honestly and seriously argue that this is a unique resource? In fact, you don't. The argument is basically that somebody made a chessgames template, and you want to keep using it.
When I visit the source I am met with a message "java plug-in" out of date. Which suggests to me that it uses by default a java plug in. I see there is a text link. Fair enough, it can escape on that point.
I object to visiting websites that instantly try to sell me something. 2 adverts is objectionable to me. The content you are externally linking to includes 3 sections (as I understand it) [1] A profile, which is basically useless in most instances as it is blank. [2] A collection of games, which may or may not be accurate, and is certainly not unique. [3] A forum, which contains potentially offensive comments, directly against WP:BLP. The site is marketed as a community. We have above, claims that it effectively operates as a wiki/fansite, ( a collective engaging in amateur, possibly original, research.) If you want to argue why "More than just a database, we're also a community." isn't an admission of social networking, I'll listen patiently. Or "Chessgames.com is the perfect place to advertise your chess tournaments, products, and services." doesn't indicate that is commercial and highly desiring a huge traffic and search engine boost from a wikipedia project linking every player to the site, i'll listen.-- Lecale42 ( talk) 18:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Lecale42 seems to be throwing every absurd argument he can think of at Chessgames, no matter how incorrect and irrelevant, in the hopes that one sticks. So far, we've heard
Assuming good faith, the problem here is the idea that non-Internet secondary sources for chess history are readily available and accurate. Neither is true. I have found ten times as many errors in a published book called "American Chess Masters from Morphy to Fischer" than I have in the entire Chessgames site put together. Frequently, when discrepancies arose in terms of dates and game scores, guess who was actually correct? Chessgames. If you want some specific examples, I am more than happy to provide them. ChessPlayerLev ( talk) 23:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Chessgames doesn't provide any biographical information at all on Steve Giddins. You are linking to a forum, and to a database which contains games which can be found elsewhere on the web. Sorry if that's too sensible for you Bubba. If the games are not unique, it doesn't fit with wikipedia policy. That's so what. Sorry to try to stay on topic with wikipedia policy. Where is the proof on the accuracy of biographical detail on chessgames.com? I don't see it anywhere in the wikipedia article? Original research on your part?-- Lecale42 ( talk) 23:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Bubba, if you are serious, try searching in google. https://www.google.fr/search?q=online+chess+database&aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=11&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Somebody's date of birth being mentioned (but not to the standards of wikipedia verifiablity) on a webpage do not qualify it as an external link. Granted, you can tenuously call that biographical detail/info, but it's pretty damn slim by anyone's measure. It barely advances on the information already linked to from the FIDE player card. As for "proof", all we are looking at here is wikipedia's own standards, which the site doesn't meet. I didn't write those standards, so don't but bug me if you don't like them. Comments and ads are there (Every page has 4 adverts by the way. 2 placed via cookie info, 1 for the host website, 1 for premium membership of the site.), you should not link to anything that may contain inappropriate material cf Biography policy. If that includes 99% of webpages out there, don't blame me, blame wikipedia policy. -- Lecale42 ( talk) 17:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Would someone look at recent edits to Ponziani Opening? The editor says that he wrote a book on the Ponziani, but his edits call things "hogwash", he puts things in wrong places, and some edits seem POV, and no references. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 13:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The "List of chess books" pages ( List of chess books (A–F), List of chess books (G–L), List of chess books (M–S), List of chess books (T–Z)) are being discussed at WT:NOT#Does this run afoul of WP:NOTDIR?. The concern is that they aren't appropriate for a Wikipedia article. I've always thought this list does not belong in article namespace, although I've been too lazy to actually try to do anything about it. If they are thought to be important then I would recommend putting them in the project namespace. (I don't actually think the list is important or useful either. There are over 10,000 chess books written in English, and I don't see any reason that the list shouldn't include chess books in other languages. The list is too indiscriminate.) Quale ( talk) 16:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
What sense does it make to call something an "unforced error" in chess? Tennis has forced errors and unforced errors, but chess?. Pal Benko uses the term in his column in the October 2012 Chess Life (p. 44, first paragraph) and it was used in an article on the Susan Polgar blog a week or so ago. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I can't figure out where and how to propose an article to be promoted in class. Can someone please explain how it works to me? -- Rigas • Talk • Deeds • 08:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Does this player meets our notability standards? Sasata ( talk) 15:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Batsford Chess Endings by Speelman, et. al. says that two bishops versus a lone king win in 99.97% of the positions (see pawnless chess endings). If the starting position is a legal position with White to move, and the bishops on opposite colors, what is a position where the bishops can't force checkmate? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Julie Terry Lefèvre-Han - yet another hoax. MrsHudson ( talk) 13:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
In Alekhine's Defence, what is the significance of telling about the longest and shortest games with those variations? Bubba73 You talkin' to me?
Look at the discussions at Talk:Antichess and Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language and see if there's any need for a banner saying that gender-generic "he" is acceptable in chess articles. Georgia guy ( talk) 20:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Considering that I have had several disputes with Ihardlythinkso that went to the ANI, I'm well aware of who he is. This doesn't change the fact that on this topic, he is completely and irrevocably correct. It's not just "authors of chess literature" who use these personal pronouns, it's "the entire chess world". The idea that Wikipedia should ignore standard convention and "do their own thing" would be like WikiMath articles using a tilde in place of the standard plus sign in arithmetic. It's ridiculous, confusing, and unnecessary. By the way, notice the subtle shift in your questions. First, you asked whether there was a standard of using masculine personal pronouns in the chess literature. When you were informed that yes, there was, you started endlessly asking how and why this was so, two utterly irrelevant questions when talking about notation or naming conventions. ChessPlayerLev ( talk) 01:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Georgia guy, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me like you’re objecting to the standard use of “he” in chess because you believe that chess writers/players don’t care about sex neutrality and equality, or possibly actively work against it. This is pure speculation, and it’s entirely non-productive and not germane to this discussion. Until and unless there’s a news report on the chess world systematically oppressing female players, don’t try and ascribe motives to it. (Apologies if this comes off as flippant or rude. I’m not trying to be; I’m just sleepy.) — Frungi ( talk) 06:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Does it say that it doesn't apply to chess anywhere?? Georgia guy ( talk) 13:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, not going to read everything that's been posted here since Georgia Guy seems to employ methods of communication that are designed to produce huge walls of text without accomplishing anything, but: isn't it obvious that this should just be handled on a case-by-case basis? If a given sentence or article can easily be made gender-neutral without having an important effect on clarity, let any editor who wants to, do that. If an edit to gender-neutrality results in a really unreadable sentence, then engage in good-faith attempts to find a compromise. At
antichess one user got so invested in fighting gender-neutral changes that s/he stopped bothering to actually consider whether or not they were actually harmful. A single instance of "his or her" or "she or he" in a sentence is totally innocuous; in a long section in which White and Black appear with gendered pronouns repeatedly, one can be called "he" and the other "she" with no loss of clarity or quality of writing; and some sentences can be easily and happily reworded in the passive voice (which already seems to be common on the small number of chess articles I've looked at, including Antichess). I don't see why anyone in this project should waste time making a banner about this, nor why anyone should feel obligated to switch gendered to neutral language if they don't want to, nor why anyone should treat this as anything other than a typical minor issue to be handled on a case-by-case basis.
(By the way, I professionally am a mathematician -- given the relative gender-imbalance in my field, I've tried to speak and write gender-neutrally when in the mathematical context. Typical readers really don't notice it at all, and a small number of people appreciate it. It's certainly not a burden on clear communication, but nor is it worth a lot of pointless bickering.) - JBL ( talk) 15:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Back to the main point: Should Wikipedia use the generic “he” in chess articles, or should we strive to ignore the sexes of the players? Or has this been discussed in the past and a consensus reached? — Frungi ( talk) 05:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed on the main point; that's why I didn't suggest the glossary. But I do feel that it ought to be explained somewhere, like in the Chess article or here on the WIkiProject—if only to dissuade objectors and avoid future misguided debates. Of course, this is merely my opinion. — Frungi ( talk) 10:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)