![]() | 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 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 39 |
Am bringing this here for more input from project members.
Q from
Alex Shih: "If such format is standard for chess articles, what makes them "notable" in the first place? Regards,
Alex Shih (
talk) 01:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
"
My two cents:
Add'l backdrop:
off topic |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I agree WP:IINFO should apply: "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Lists of game links containing nothing other than unsourced assertions should be removed. I don't think we've ever defined appropriate "objective inclusion criteria", nor do I think it's necessary. WP:IINFO and WP:NOTEVERYTHING ("Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight.") provide the standard that should be followed. Cobblet ( talk) 12:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
For Fischer, one reliable source is John Nunn. In his book "The world's greatest chess games" he included 8 wins or draws by Fischer: D. Byrne 1956, Tal 1960 (draw), R. Byrne 1963, Panno 1970, Larsen game 1, Petrosian game 7, Spassky game 6, and game 1 of the 1992 match. [6] That's pretty close to the list in the article and (in my opinion if it matters) is has no glaring omissions. Adpete ( talk) 05:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth Wilhelm Steinitz seems to have it almost right, although there's still no real inclusion criteria noted. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This is going to be lengthy, so I am shifting things back to the left margin.
Since the initial flap over Stefán Kristjánsson, The Rambling Man has applied his tag to several Wiki chess biographies: Howard Staunton, Adolf Anderssen, Emmanuel Lasker, Alexander Alekhine, and Magnus Carlsen. So I decided to visit these to see what the fuss was about.
The one I liked best was Emmanuel Lasker. There are seven games in the Notable Games section. I recognized four of them from just the names and the date. Of the others, I recognized two of them after I had started to play them over. Only in the case of Steinitz-Lasker 1899 am I really unsure that I have already seen the game.
Bear in mind that I am not a Lasker historian, or a chess historian of any kind except to the extent that I have been editing chess Wiki for a couple of years. The reason I am familiar with these games is because chess has a "canon", and they are part of it. Every one who has studied chess has been exposed to this canon. Also bear in mind that when I was exposed to these games, decades ago, it was already several decades since Lasker had died, but it was still decades in the future before there was Wikipedia, or even before there was an Internet. There is no other explanation for my familiarity with these games, than that they are part of the "canon". Note that the canon is much larger than the contents of List of chess games.
It is perfectly natural to call the games section of Lasker's article "Notable games", given that the games are part of the canon. Conversely, the fact that a game is in the canon, seems like a perfectly normal and natural reason for including it in a "Notable games" section. How do we know what's in the canon? The usual Wiki definition of "Notable" is just fine for this. In Lasker's article, every game comes with a citation of some source, usually a textbook or a game collection or something. What's not to like? Well, OK, the caption for one of the games is not too helpful. That is Steinitz-Lasker 1899: "The old champion and the new one really go for it." But other than that, everything seems in order.
When I went to the articles about Staunton and Anderssen, things were not so nice. Neither article has a single reference to a source regarding any game in its Notable Games section. I surely cannot fault The Rambling Man for placing his tag there, although I would think some less esoteric tag such as "citation needed" would have been adequate.
I haven't gotten to Alekhine yet. I went to Magnus Carlssen, and I soon realized that it had its own problems. Two of the captions are not sourced, and all of the remaining four have sources that are news articles. While an article may be an adequate source for the claim that Carlsen beat Topalov, it is not an adequate source for the claim that the game was notable. As long as Carlsen is World Champion or anything close to it, all his games will be in the chess news. There have to be higher criteria for promotion to Wiki.
There are several reasons why it is problematic to define notability for games by players like Carlsen; and these apply not only to him, but to players who are still active in international chess, such as Anand and Kramnik, as well as those only recently retired, such as Kasparov. The spotlight shining on Carlsen makes all his games look noteworthy now, but most of them will eventually be largely forgotten, the same as with past World Champions such as Lasker. Moreover, for recent players, the textbooks and game collections that we ordinarily rely on for the judgement of notability haven't been written yet.
The caption to the first game in the list is, "At the age of just 13 years, Carlsen had serious winning chances in a rapid game against Garry Kasparov, who was ranked No. 1 in the world at that time." This doesn't even tempt me to play over the game, let alone persuade me that it is notable. The caption to the second game is, "This was Carlsen's first win against a 2800+ player." So, it may have been personal milestone for him, but that criterion means next to nothing for me. The other four captions are plausible, but I can reach out to the Web any month and find Carlsen games that have more to interest me than these.
So, I'm unhappy about the general condition of the Notable Games list in Carlsen's article, and I am not sure I have helpful constructive suggestions for making things better. I think we just have to be exceedingly careful about building Notable Games lists for modern players.
By the way, I think that a "Notable Games" section is optional in a chess biography, even of an undoubtedly great player. Milan Vidmar, which I have recently worked on, doesn't have one, and I couldn't think of any really obvious choice, although his win with the Budapest Gambit against Rubinstein is good for a laugh. Perhaps the Slovenian chess canon has some choice games by Vidmar, but I don't know them.
This brings us around to where the discussion started, which was with Stefán Kristjánsson. After some initial dialogue, Hrodvarsson made a valiant attempt to improve that article's Notable Games list by, among other things, digging up news articles (by a chess grandmaster) about the games. Besides being "only" news articles, these are in Icelandic, which means that although they might be adequate for Icelandic Wiki, they are even less helpful for demonstrating notability for English Wiki.
Nevertheless, I would be happy to defer to the judgement of Hrodvarsson on this matter, because he is a competent editor who probably knows a good deal more about Stefán Kristjánsson than I do. But what happened next was a weird twist. Editor Ritchie333 drove by and changed the title of the section from "Notable Games" to "Games", with the comment, "simplified". I can't help but think that this was kind of like a joke or a prank. Although I have complained about how problematic it is to designate notable games by modern players, I don't think the solution involves some players' articles having "Notable Games" while other players just have "Games". So I would encourage Hrodvarsson to either restore the article to having "Notable Games", or to set it to having no games. Bruce leverett ( talk) 03:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
There's no close, is there a consensus? Again, if secheads were Illustrative games or Sample games instead of Notable games, would the tagging/removal argument "What makes these games illustrative?" or "What makes these games samples?" exist?
BTW, [7] [8] [9] [10] FYI, -- IHTS ( talk) 07:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Matthias Blübaum, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellows,
Are we allowed to create a full article dedicated to important/notable chess games with complete analysis? I notice we have The Game of the Century (chess). Wikipedia could become a database of analyzed games for the chess masses :). Thank you IQ125 ( talk) 14:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Definitely looks like it is okay then to me. Just ensure that there are notable third-party citations. Most famous games have been analyzed to death. I am surprised there are not more of them in Wikipedia. I have now found Category:Chess games. IQ125 ( talk) 12:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, Adam Robinson (author) "studied the game with Bobby Fischer". The blog article offered as evidence for this claim says "As a teenager, he was personally mentored by Bobby Fischer in the 18 months leading up to his winning the world championship." I'm skeptical that Fischer was mentoring a high school student any time around 1970 to 1972. Any thoughts? Quale ( talk) 23:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Participants may be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#RFC on the use of notable games sections AIRcorn (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Even though it's 3.5 years old, somehow the {{ American Chess Masters}} template had escaped my notice. Probably because they have the good taste to collapse it when used and because I try to pretend that most of these kinds of template box things don't exist. But there are at least two things I don't like about it.
Category:American chess players is fairly large, containing over 300 pages. Mercifully the chess masters template doesn't include all of them, but I don't understand what criteria are used for choosing which players to include. The template includes many rather obscure players, but it omits Isaac Kashdan, Jackson Showalter, Harry Nelson Pillsbury. Edward Lasker, etc., which is an outrage. Yes, I know WP:SOFIXIT, but those four are not the only players who are inexplicably absent and wrangling over the players to include doesn't seem to be a good use of time or energy especially when I wish the template would just disappear.
But the real aggravation is that this template essentially breaks What links here for every article it links. Every one of those pages links every other one, so Paul Morphy links Jeffery Xiong. That's just really damned annoying. Quale ( talk) 05:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Are you guys interested in improving on my draft article User:Qwertyxp2000/Two bishops checkmate? I am sure there is significant coverage we can utilize throughout the history of chess that would make the article possible to add to the list of well-deserved Wikipedia articles. We already have one for Bishop and knight checkmate and Two knights endgame, which both have significant coverage in these special endgames, but none currently for two bishops checkmate. Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 23:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The game name is Capablanca Chess not "Capablanca chess" (just like game names are Fischer Random Chess (FRC) not "Fischer Random chess", Grand Chess not "Grand chess", Alice Chess not "Alice chess", and so on).
User SMcCandlish is back, to destroy all that, at Talk:Capablanca Chess#Requested move 27 June 2018.
Help!? There was none from WP:CHESS members at RfC WP:GAMECAPS. Where do you draw the line? -- IHTS ( talk) 11:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
A long-standing WP:CHESS precedent re variant articles' WP:Notability is being tested in an AfD for Three-check chess. Please see my comment here. Please consider providing input. Thx. -- IHTS ( talk) 06:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Help desk#Proper style in writing Chess articles to help resolve the matter. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I've left some comments at Draft:Shatra (game), but would appreciate more input from chess experts. Please take a look. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
hi all.
so we wrote in hewiki a set of scribuntu modules, to assist hewiki chess community.
basically, the idea is that more often than not, when dealing with games, the "raw material" is the game's PGN. the tools are meant to allow using the pgn directly to display the boards, instead of having to manually generate multiple copies of the hideous {{ Chess diagram}} for different positions in the game. the outline is something like so:
{{Chess diagrams from pgn | 12l = some comment | 17d = another comment | 21l = final comment | pgn = <here comes the PGN of the game> }}
the actual template name can be different, of course - this is just the outline. you can see an example in he:משתמש:קיפודנחש/ארגח 6 (look in page source - it is not exactly as described here, but it can be made this way for enwiki. also note that in hebrew, the rightmost board is the earliest - naturally, in enwiki it will be the leftmost).
note that wikidata started hosting chess games, so the outline above can use an alternate syntax: instead of the pgn= parameter, the editor can supply the wikibase item#, like so: wb_item = <wikibase item#>
also note that when the editor wants to display a list of consecutive positions (maybe useful for openings?), a shorter syntax is available:
{{Chess diagrams from pgn | from = 17l | to = 20d | comments = { comment for 17l } { c for 17d } { c for 18l } { c for 18d } { c for 19l } { c for 19d } { c for 20l } { c for 20d } | pgn = <here comes the PGN of the game> }}
the question is this: does the chess community in enwiki think this is something it might be interested in? if so, i can import the modules here, and we can build the precise template to spec together (i.e. incorporating feedback).
peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) ( talk) 23:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Although I was not part of the project, I did some updates on the Portal:Chess page. Please comment on the talk pages below:
Portal talk:Chess#Portal update
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Trasclude wikitable
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Tasks#d-batch request: Portal:Chess subpages
Thanks! Guilherme Burn ( talk) 18:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three-check chess was closed as a redirect to list of chess variants. The article ( la`st version) was considered by the discussion not to pass the GNG, as the only "independent" source was The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants by D.B. Pritchard.
A lot of the independent articles about chess variant are fundamentally similar - the meat of the article, the rules, are supported solely by a reference to Pritchard's writing (one or more of The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, Popular Chess Variants, or The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants). There are also sometimes discussions of internet chess servers that play it and occasionally an example game which is derived by an editor from the rules. Fundamentally, these articles hang on Pritchard for their existence. Entries in The Chess Variant Pages [13] can also be found for almost all variants, and for many an applet from [14] are in the external links
If a Pritchard reference is insufficient on to prove notability, a lot of chess variant articles are on very thin ice (e.g. Flying chess, Apocalypse (chess variant), Balbo's Game, Beirut Chess, Chad (chess variant)). Rather than discussions on every talk page, it would be useful to have one overarching discussion on what constitutes a chess variant worthy of an independent article, and which should be listed at List of chess variants (and which should be omitted altogether). It may also be useful to discuss where information which could be useful for demonstrating chess variant notability could be found. -- LukeSurl t c 16:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
David’s basic criterion in 1994, a few light-hearted entries apart, was that a game must have been published in some form, or at least have been played by a significant number of people outside the inventor’s circle of family and friends. The advent of the Internet has meant that ‘publication’ can now be achieved by making a few strokes on a computer keyboard and posting the result on a web site, so the first condition is no longer a constraint, and for this edition David felt obliged to be rather more selective. ...In the new edition, therefore, David added or intended to add a game only if there was evidence that significant numbers of people were playing it, or if it appeared to offer something genuinely new rather than mere complication or superficial novelty.
"The problem is that our processes such as AFD are currently dominated by Google which has a strong systemic bias against the sources which cover this field as it only seems to cover academic periodicals. For example, the journal Games & Puzzles was quite prominent in the UK in the 70s and 80s but you will find little trace of it on the net. The result is then a bias in favour of recent material such as computer games and games which get coverage in book form such as chess. Editors such as myself, who have good collections of older periodicals, are overtaxed because such paper sources cannot practically be searched quickly. "
[typed this up a day or two ago but never saved] I don't think anyone's in a rush to delete all of the variant articles. Three-check chess would not have come up at AfD if it weren't for the fact that its lack of coverage became problematic in its overreliance on Pritchard (and the question of whether Pritchard is describing something different than described by primary sources). I would oppose any notion that says that inclusion in Pritchard (or any specialist encyclopedia) makes something notable. Criteria like "it's in encyclopedia X" are indications of notability, meaning one can assume that if it was included there, there must be significant coverage in reliable sources. Its existence in that encyclopedia is not what constitutes all the sourcing we need. Pritchard may have omitted some, but he was not selective in the sense of those encyclopedias that we defer to as indicators of notability (certain national encyclopedias of biography, britannica, the encyclopedie, etc.). It's nothing against Pritchard -- it's just that specialist encyclopedias are, by definition, attempts to bring together as much of a topic as possible and do not limit inclusion just to those that have received significant coverage elsewhere. Indeed, Pritchard seems to draw from his own interactions with people, what is "said to have been" (though I recognize this phrasing is something of a reference work convention), etc. Any of these hypothetical guidelines to show notability should be based not on how important they sound, but on correspondence to the existence of sourcing. As for foreign sources, even if we say that there may be troves of sources none of us can access and thus that they would be considered notable per GNG, that we cannot access them means we will never have anything more than a version of Pritchard combined with substandard sources. Such a case seems like a great use of list of chess variants until which time as more than 1 source can be found (should someone decide to take action -- again, I'm not suggesting any action needs to be taken except on a case by case basis as people notice problems). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@ LukeSurl: On {{ Notability}} - yes I know it is not a permanent solution. It means that we need more sources to establish notability - if it is agreed that Pritchard is not enough by itself. But on the other hand, there isn't a timescale on which you have to prove notability, not like an AfD. It's gray area. In the case of Duell (Chess) I think we can fairly make a presumption of notability - that the material is expected to be there but is going to be hard to find because it is in hard copy in magazines. Also - is it possible to have custom notability guidelines that are not based on WP:RS? I know that usually that's required but I wonder if we can have a special exception of some sort. The motivation for developing such a guideline would be the difficulty of fulfilling the requirement of finding sources for old games, and yet the likely notability, leading to a huge bias in favour of recentism.
After all the notability guidelines themselves are only sufficient for a presumption of notability. So - I would argue perhaps we can go a step back and have a presumption of notability based on criteria such as:
etc.
(where there'd be guidelines about what exactly is needed to establish notability in this list)
It is not an attempt to hijack normal notability guidelines. It is rather an attempt at developing a surrogate for notability to avoid a bias towards recentism in a topic area where it is almost impossible to search contemporary publications to find cites of the games. Even the notability on merit would be a surrogate - an innovative idea is likely to have a fair bit of contemporary discussion if we coudl find it.
@ Bruce leverett: Oh I see what you mean, but - remember these are different companies too. It's not easy to get a board game published internationally. My main interest in this topic area is because I tried to make a go at it myself (sadly not successful). One of mine was nearly published - and the company that wanted to publish it, Gibson's Games, after a number of different ideas of how to produce it, decided they needed to make plastic pieces using moulds. They found that it needed moulds that were too expensive for them to produce by themselves. They decided to try to get an German company involved - sadly the idea fell through, and that was the end of the project. So, especially if it is a new game - it's not easy to get it to go internationally. If I understand it right, only if it has actually got a proven track record in one country would another company license it from the one that first published it. And to be jointly published would require a great deal of merit and two separate companies to be convinced of its value. While if it is renamed - that suggests to me that the companies have taken it on independently - each one evaluated it as good and rebranded it - based on its sales by the other company - or intrinsic merit. So - I know this is limited experience but I think it suggests that being published in three countries must mean it enjoyed a fair bit of success at least for a while. And so, probably, a fair bit of coverage too. At least - that was my reasoning. Robert Walker ( talk) 20:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I have written a draft article: Draft:Chess variant. The intention is to place this at Chess variant, which currently redirects to List of chess variants, so as to give an overview of the topic separate from the list article. I'd appreciate your inputs/edits before this is moved to mainspace. Please feel free to edit this as if it were a mainspace article. -- LukeSurl t c 16:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Could someone integrate the medal template for Template:Infobox chess biography. It's kinda awkward to use a separate infobox for medals of a chess player who won medals in multi-sporting events such as the Asian Indoor Games such as Krishnan Sasikiran's and Wesley So's gold for the Philippines in the 2013 Summer Universiade. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 09:19, 14 October 2018 (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 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 39 |
Am bringing this here for more input from project members.
Q from
Alex Shih: "If such format is standard for chess articles, what makes them "notable" in the first place? Regards,
Alex Shih (
talk) 01:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
"
My two cents:
Add'l backdrop:
off topic |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I agree WP:IINFO should apply: "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Lists of game links containing nothing other than unsourced assertions should be removed. I don't think we've ever defined appropriate "objective inclusion criteria", nor do I think it's necessary. WP:IINFO and WP:NOTEVERYTHING ("Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight.") provide the standard that should be followed. Cobblet ( talk) 12:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
For Fischer, one reliable source is John Nunn. In his book "The world's greatest chess games" he included 8 wins or draws by Fischer: D. Byrne 1956, Tal 1960 (draw), R. Byrne 1963, Panno 1970, Larsen game 1, Petrosian game 7, Spassky game 6, and game 1 of the 1992 match. [6] That's pretty close to the list in the article and (in my opinion if it matters) is has no glaring omissions. Adpete ( talk) 05:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth Wilhelm Steinitz seems to have it almost right, although there's still no real inclusion criteria noted. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This is going to be lengthy, so I am shifting things back to the left margin.
Since the initial flap over Stefán Kristjánsson, The Rambling Man has applied his tag to several Wiki chess biographies: Howard Staunton, Adolf Anderssen, Emmanuel Lasker, Alexander Alekhine, and Magnus Carlsen. So I decided to visit these to see what the fuss was about.
The one I liked best was Emmanuel Lasker. There are seven games in the Notable Games section. I recognized four of them from just the names and the date. Of the others, I recognized two of them after I had started to play them over. Only in the case of Steinitz-Lasker 1899 am I really unsure that I have already seen the game.
Bear in mind that I am not a Lasker historian, or a chess historian of any kind except to the extent that I have been editing chess Wiki for a couple of years. The reason I am familiar with these games is because chess has a "canon", and they are part of it. Every one who has studied chess has been exposed to this canon. Also bear in mind that when I was exposed to these games, decades ago, it was already several decades since Lasker had died, but it was still decades in the future before there was Wikipedia, or even before there was an Internet. There is no other explanation for my familiarity with these games, than that they are part of the "canon". Note that the canon is much larger than the contents of List of chess games.
It is perfectly natural to call the games section of Lasker's article "Notable games", given that the games are part of the canon. Conversely, the fact that a game is in the canon, seems like a perfectly normal and natural reason for including it in a "Notable games" section. How do we know what's in the canon? The usual Wiki definition of "Notable" is just fine for this. In Lasker's article, every game comes with a citation of some source, usually a textbook or a game collection or something. What's not to like? Well, OK, the caption for one of the games is not too helpful. That is Steinitz-Lasker 1899: "The old champion and the new one really go for it." But other than that, everything seems in order.
When I went to the articles about Staunton and Anderssen, things were not so nice. Neither article has a single reference to a source regarding any game in its Notable Games section. I surely cannot fault The Rambling Man for placing his tag there, although I would think some less esoteric tag such as "citation needed" would have been adequate.
I haven't gotten to Alekhine yet. I went to Magnus Carlssen, and I soon realized that it had its own problems. Two of the captions are not sourced, and all of the remaining four have sources that are news articles. While an article may be an adequate source for the claim that Carlsen beat Topalov, it is not an adequate source for the claim that the game was notable. As long as Carlsen is World Champion or anything close to it, all his games will be in the chess news. There have to be higher criteria for promotion to Wiki.
There are several reasons why it is problematic to define notability for games by players like Carlsen; and these apply not only to him, but to players who are still active in international chess, such as Anand and Kramnik, as well as those only recently retired, such as Kasparov. The spotlight shining on Carlsen makes all his games look noteworthy now, but most of them will eventually be largely forgotten, the same as with past World Champions such as Lasker. Moreover, for recent players, the textbooks and game collections that we ordinarily rely on for the judgement of notability haven't been written yet.
The caption to the first game in the list is, "At the age of just 13 years, Carlsen had serious winning chances in a rapid game against Garry Kasparov, who was ranked No. 1 in the world at that time." This doesn't even tempt me to play over the game, let alone persuade me that it is notable. The caption to the second game is, "This was Carlsen's first win against a 2800+ player." So, it may have been personal milestone for him, but that criterion means next to nothing for me. The other four captions are plausible, but I can reach out to the Web any month and find Carlsen games that have more to interest me than these.
So, I'm unhappy about the general condition of the Notable Games list in Carlsen's article, and I am not sure I have helpful constructive suggestions for making things better. I think we just have to be exceedingly careful about building Notable Games lists for modern players.
By the way, I think that a "Notable Games" section is optional in a chess biography, even of an undoubtedly great player. Milan Vidmar, which I have recently worked on, doesn't have one, and I couldn't think of any really obvious choice, although his win with the Budapest Gambit against Rubinstein is good for a laugh. Perhaps the Slovenian chess canon has some choice games by Vidmar, but I don't know them.
This brings us around to where the discussion started, which was with Stefán Kristjánsson. After some initial dialogue, Hrodvarsson made a valiant attempt to improve that article's Notable Games list by, among other things, digging up news articles (by a chess grandmaster) about the games. Besides being "only" news articles, these are in Icelandic, which means that although they might be adequate for Icelandic Wiki, they are even less helpful for demonstrating notability for English Wiki.
Nevertheless, I would be happy to defer to the judgement of Hrodvarsson on this matter, because he is a competent editor who probably knows a good deal more about Stefán Kristjánsson than I do. But what happened next was a weird twist. Editor Ritchie333 drove by and changed the title of the section from "Notable Games" to "Games", with the comment, "simplified". I can't help but think that this was kind of like a joke or a prank. Although I have complained about how problematic it is to designate notable games by modern players, I don't think the solution involves some players' articles having "Notable Games" while other players just have "Games". So I would encourage Hrodvarsson to either restore the article to having "Notable Games", or to set it to having no games. Bruce leverett ( talk) 03:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
There's no close, is there a consensus? Again, if secheads were Illustrative games or Sample games instead of Notable games, would the tagging/removal argument "What makes these games illustrative?" or "What makes these games samples?" exist?
BTW, [7] [8] [9] [10] FYI, -- IHTS ( talk) 07:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Matthias Blübaum, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellows,
Are we allowed to create a full article dedicated to important/notable chess games with complete analysis? I notice we have The Game of the Century (chess). Wikipedia could become a database of analyzed games for the chess masses :). Thank you IQ125 ( talk) 14:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Definitely looks like it is okay then to me. Just ensure that there are notable third-party citations. Most famous games have been analyzed to death. I am surprised there are not more of them in Wikipedia. I have now found Category:Chess games. IQ125 ( talk) 12:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, Adam Robinson (author) "studied the game with Bobby Fischer". The blog article offered as evidence for this claim says "As a teenager, he was personally mentored by Bobby Fischer in the 18 months leading up to his winning the world championship." I'm skeptical that Fischer was mentoring a high school student any time around 1970 to 1972. Any thoughts? Quale ( talk) 23:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Participants may be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#RFC on the use of notable games sections AIRcorn (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Even though it's 3.5 years old, somehow the {{ American Chess Masters}} template had escaped my notice. Probably because they have the good taste to collapse it when used and because I try to pretend that most of these kinds of template box things don't exist. But there are at least two things I don't like about it.
Category:American chess players is fairly large, containing over 300 pages. Mercifully the chess masters template doesn't include all of them, but I don't understand what criteria are used for choosing which players to include. The template includes many rather obscure players, but it omits Isaac Kashdan, Jackson Showalter, Harry Nelson Pillsbury. Edward Lasker, etc., which is an outrage. Yes, I know WP:SOFIXIT, but those four are not the only players who are inexplicably absent and wrangling over the players to include doesn't seem to be a good use of time or energy especially when I wish the template would just disappear.
But the real aggravation is that this template essentially breaks What links here for every article it links. Every one of those pages links every other one, so Paul Morphy links Jeffery Xiong. That's just really damned annoying. Quale ( talk) 05:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Are you guys interested in improving on my draft article User:Qwertyxp2000/Two bishops checkmate? I am sure there is significant coverage we can utilize throughout the history of chess that would make the article possible to add to the list of well-deserved Wikipedia articles. We already have one for Bishop and knight checkmate and Two knights endgame, which both have significant coverage in these special endgames, but none currently for two bishops checkmate. Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 23:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The game name is Capablanca Chess not "Capablanca chess" (just like game names are Fischer Random Chess (FRC) not "Fischer Random chess", Grand Chess not "Grand chess", Alice Chess not "Alice chess", and so on).
User SMcCandlish is back, to destroy all that, at Talk:Capablanca Chess#Requested move 27 June 2018.
Help!? There was none from WP:CHESS members at RfC WP:GAMECAPS. Where do you draw the line? -- IHTS ( talk) 11:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
A long-standing WP:CHESS precedent re variant articles' WP:Notability is being tested in an AfD for Three-check chess. Please see my comment here. Please consider providing input. Thx. -- IHTS ( talk) 06:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Help desk#Proper style in writing Chess articles to help resolve the matter. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I've left some comments at Draft:Shatra (game), but would appreciate more input from chess experts. Please take a look. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
hi all.
so we wrote in hewiki a set of scribuntu modules, to assist hewiki chess community.
basically, the idea is that more often than not, when dealing with games, the "raw material" is the game's PGN. the tools are meant to allow using the pgn directly to display the boards, instead of having to manually generate multiple copies of the hideous {{ Chess diagram}} for different positions in the game. the outline is something like so:
{{Chess diagrams from pgn | 12l = some comment | 17d = another comment | 21l = final comment | pgn = <here comes the PGN of the game> }}
the actual template name can be different, of course - this is just the outline. you can see an example in he:משתמש:קיפודנחש/ארגח 6 (look in page source - it is not exactly as described here, but it can be made this way for enwiki. also note that in hebrew, the rightmost board is the earliest - naturally, in enwiki it will be the leftmost).
note that wikidata started hosting chess games, so the outline above can use an alternate syntax: instead of the pgn= parameter, the editor can supply the wikibase item#, like so: wb_item = <wikibase item#>
also note that when the editor wants to display a list of consecutive positions (maybe useful for openings?), a shorter syntax is available:
{{Chess diagrams from pgn | from = 17l | to = 20d | comments = { comment for 17l } { c for 17d } { c for 18l } { c for 18d } { c for 19l } { c for 19d } { c for 20l } { c for 20d } | pgn = <here comes the PGN of the game> }}
the question is this: does the chess community in enwiki think this is something it might be interested in? if so, i can import the modules here, and we can build the precise template to spec together (i.e. incorporating feedback).
peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) ( talk) 23:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Although I was not part of the project, I did some updates on the Portal:Chess page. Please comment on the talk pages below:
Portal talk:Chess#Portal update
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Trasclude wikitable
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Tasks#d-batch request: Portal:Chess subpages
Thanks! Guilherme Burn ( talk) 18:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three-check chess was closed as a redirect to list of chess variants. The article ( la`st version) was considered by the discussion not to pass the GNG, as the only "independent" source was The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants by D.B. Pritchard.
A lot of the independent articles about chess variant are fundamentally similar - the meat of the article, the rules, are supported solely by a reference to Pritchard's writing (one or more of The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, Popular Chess Variants, or The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants). There are also sometimes discussions of internet chess servers that play it and occasionally an example game which is derived by an editor from the rules. Fundamentally, these articles hang on Pritchard for their existence. Entries in The Chess Variant Pages [13] can also be found for almost all variants, and for many an applet from [14] are in the external links
If a Pritchard reference is insufficient on to prove notability, a lot of chess variant articles are on very thin ice (e.g. Flying chess, Apocalypse (chess variant), Balbo's Game, Beirut Chess, Chad (chess variant)). Rather than discussions on every talk page, it would be useful to have one overarching discussion on what constitutes a chess variant worthy of an independent article, and which should be listed at List of chess variants (and which should be omitted altogether). It may also be useful to discuss where information which could be useful for demonstrating chess variant notability could be found. -- LukeSurl t c 16:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
David’s basic criterion in 1994, a few light-hearted entries apart, was that a game must have been published in some form, or at least have been played by a significant number of people outside the inventor’s circle of family and friends. The advent of the Internet has meant that ‘publication’ can now be achieved by making a few strokes on a computer keyboard and posting the result on a web site, so the first condition is no longer a constraint, and for this edition David felt obliged to be rather more selective. ...In the new edition, therefore, David added or intended to add a game only if there was evidence that significant numbers of people were playing it, or if it appeared to offer something genuinely new rather than mere complication or superficial novelty.
"The problem is that our processes such as AFD are currently dominated by Google which has a strong systemic bias against the sources which cover this field as it only seems to cover academic periodicals. For example, the journal Games & Puzzles was quite prominent in the UK in the 70s and 80s but you will find little trace of it on the net. The result is then a bias in favour of recent material such as computer games and games which get coverage in book form such as chess. Editors such as myself, who have good collections of older periodicals, are overtaxed because such paper sources cannot practically be searched quickly. "
[typed this up a day or two ago but never saved] I don't think anyone's in a rush to delete all of the variant articles. Three-check chess would not have come up at AfD if it weren't for the fact that its lack of coverage became problematic in its overreliance on Pritchard (and the question of whether Pritchard is describing something different than described by primary sources). I would oppose any notion that says that inclusion in Pritchard (or any specialist encyclopedia) makes something notable. Criteria like "it's in encyclopedia X" are indications of notability, meaning one can assume that if it was included there, there must be significant coverage in reliable sources. Its existence in that encyclopedia is not what constitutes all the sourcing we need. Pritchard may have omitted some, but he was not selective in the sense of those encyclopedias that we defer to as indicators of notability (certain national encyclopedias of biography, britannica, the encyclopedie, etc.). It's nothing against Pritchard -- it's just that specialist encyclopedias are, by definition, attempts to bring together as much of a topic as possible and do not limit inclusion just to those that have received significant coverage elsewhere. Indeed, Pritchard seems to draw from his own interactions with people, what is "said to have been" (though I recognize this phrasing is something of a reference work convention), etc. Any of these hypothetical guidelines to show notability should be based not on how important they sound, but on correspondence to the existence of sourcing. As for foreign sources, even if we say that there may be troves of sources none of us can access and thus that they would be considered notable per GNG, that we cannot access them means we will never have anything more than a version of Pritchard combined with substandard sources. Such a case seems like a great use of list of chess variants until which time as more than 1 source can be found (should someone decide to take action -- again, I'm not suggesting any action needs to be taken except on a case by case basis as people notice problems). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@ LukeSurl: On {{ Notability}} - yes I know it is not a permanent solution. It means that we need more sources to establish notability - if it is agreed that Pritchard is not enough by itself. But on the other hand, there isn't a timescale on which you have to prove notability, not like an AfD. It's gray area. In the case of Duell (Chess) I think we can fairly make a presumption of notability - that the material is expected to be there but is going to be hard to find because it is in hard copy in magazines. Also - is it possible to have custom notability guidelines that are not based on WP:RS? I know that usually that's required but I wonder if we can have a special exception of some sort. The motivation for developing such a guideline would be the difficulty of fulfilling the requirement of finding sources for old games, and yet the likely notability, leading to a huge bias in favour of recentism.
After all the notability guidelines themselves are only sufficient for a presumption of notability. So - I would argue perhaps we can go a step back and have a presumption of notability based on criteria such as:
etc.
(where there'd be guidelines about what exactly is needed to establish notability in this list)
It is not an attempt to hijack normal notability guidelines. It is rather an attempt at developing a surrogate for notability to avoid a bias towards recentism in a topic area where it is almost impossible to search contemporary publications to find cites of the games. Even the notability on merit would be a surrogate - an innovative idea is likely to have a fair bit of contemporary discussion if we coudl find it.
@ Bruce leverett: Oh I see what you mean, but - remember these are different companies too. It's not easy to get a board game published internationally. My main interest in this topic area is because I tried to make a go at it myself (sadly not successful). One of mine was nearly published - and the company that wanted to publish it, Gibson's Games, after a number of different ideas of how to produce it, decided they needed to make plastic pieces using moulds. They found that it needed moulds that were too expensive for them to produce by themselves. They decided to try to get an German company involved - sadly the idea fell through, and that was the end of the project. So, especially if it is a new game - it's not easy to get it to go internationally. If I understand it right, only if it has actually got a proven track record in one country would another company license it from the one that first published it. And to be jointly published would require a great deal of merit and two separate companies to be convinced of its value. While if it is renamed - that suggests to me that the companies have taken it on independently - each one evaluated it as good and rebranded it - based on its sales by the other company - or intrinsic merit. So - I know this is limited experience but I think it suggests that being published in three countries must mean it enjoyed a fair bit of success at least for a while. And so, probably, a fair bit of coverage too. At least - that was my reasoning. Robert Walker ( talk) 20:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I have written a draft article: Draft:Chess variant. The intention is to place this at Chess variant, which currently redirects to List of chess variants, so as to give an overview of the topic separate from the list article. I'd appreciate your inputs/edits before this is moved to mainspace. Please feel free to edit this as if it were a mainspace article. -- LukeSurl t c 16:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Could someone integrate the medal template for Template:Infobox chess biography. It's kinda awkward to use a separate infobox for medals of a chess player who won medals in multi-sporting events such as the Asian Indoor Games such as Krishnan Sasikiran's and Wesley So's gold for the Philippines in the 2013 Summer Universiade. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 09:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)