Talk:List of Internet chess servers

Assessment

I have set this as STUB because it has no references. Rpyle731^talk 00:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

References should be in the interwiki linked articles, not on the list itself! JunoBeach (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

"Difficult or contentious subjects for which the definition of the topic itself is disputed should be discussed on the talk page in order to attain consensus and to ensure that each item to be included on the list is adequately referenced and that the page on which the list appears as a whole represents a neutral point of view." WP:Source list. All lists are the subject of WP:RS as stated in the lead paragraph, "The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception" Mkdw^talk 09:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Chess.com

This site has one of the biggest memberships. Removing Chess.com from the list needs justification and consensus. WP:List has been mentioned as support for removal of Chess.com from the list. (What part of WP:List supports that?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the part from WP:LIST that supports removal, "The items on these lists include links to articles in a particular subject area, and may include additional information about the listed items." Chess.com does not have an article so therefore should not be included in the List. It's not additional information about a listed item either, it's an additional listed item that does not have an article, and therefore, should not be included. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's an accurate reading of the guidelines. Look at the selection criteria for stand-alone lists at WP:CSC. List items are allowed even if they don't have articles, either by the first criterion because they are red-linked (Chess.com might qualify) or by the second and third criteria. The third in particular allows "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group." The question then would be whether the list qualified as "useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers." Note finally that "The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses." Quale (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

While they are allowed, at WP:SOFTWARE they recommend for server lists for not having entries that do not have their own article. I was not aware of this until looking into the AfD but I think the WikiProject has the notability proposal and should set the precedent. I found the above template used on several server list articles such as Talk:List of mail servers. Mkdw^talk 22:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

In an effort to firm up the article for the current AfD, I have removed all the entries that were not linked to Wikipedia articles. Mkdw gave a good justification of this in the AfD discussion and just above. I agree with Ihardlythinkso that Chess.com really should be on this list. It is surprising that Chess.com doesn't have an article on it at Wikipedia. I don't have the chess knowledge to know what are the reliable sources with which to create such an article. Perhaps Chess.com should be added to requested or most wanted articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess? --Mark viking (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The justification was wrong, and I'm afraid I don't understand what Mkdw wrote as it doesn't quite parse in English. Please read WP:CSC as I noted above. Quale (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Specifically, WP:CSC says that short lists (<32K) can contain entries that do not have articles. The page is currently 1,142 bytes. Quale (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what language you were expecting my comment to parse in? It's clearly written in English and slightly offensive for you to suggest otherwise? This is here nor there, but you can understand how comments like that will only add fuel to the fire of this controversial topic. I estimate that WP:CSC has been misinterpreted to mean that small lists can include anything with a citation which is not true. A single citation does not infer notability.

• Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.

WP:CSC only applies if List of Internet chess servers is a 'complete list of every item that is verifiably a member of a the group.' This is a very specific point in the guideline. The items listed are not identified as belonging to a specific grouping of chess servers that together are notable and would be incomplete without listing the other servers. The policy uses character lists as an example because they can be easily identified as a grouping by reliable sources. There are an astronomical number of private and commercial chess servers. If no such grouping is notably recognized, or the numbers are in the hundreds, the guideline specifies that notability guidelines must be used for inclusion. The guideline also clearly warns against the list becoming indiscriminate. A single citation does not infer notability under WP:GNG and a burden would be placed in proving each server has been the subject of multiple independent and reliable sources (not one source). It would be advisable that if a server was notable, then a stub could be created with sources, and then included on the list. If a server is not notable, people will take it to AfD rather than edit war over the citations on the article which has been happening. Mkdw^talk 03:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Mkdw, can you please provide a link into WP:SOFTWARE that recommends as you mentioned above? (I want to read it, I've been looking but can't find it. Apparently you know right where it is. Thanks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I discovered that WP:NSOFTWARE assumed the role of WP:SOFTWARE when the template was seemingly made. Since its an essay and not a guideline I have removed it but the arguments to WP:CSC have been addressed above. Thanks for your civil reply. Mkdw^talk 03:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Mkdw's interpretation of the listing criteria should carry the day. It's very well reasoned. Besides that, the WP:GNG should apply. Hefha72 (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

@Hefha72, WP:GNG applies to articles, not to content within articles. To quote, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." That's what "stand-alone" means. See this in the lead portion of WP:N (earlier on the same page): "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." This is a common confusion but it's spelled out explicitly on the page. Quale (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

@Mkdw: By "does not parse in English", I meant this. "at WP:SOFTWARE they recommend for server lists for not having entries that do not have their own article." isn't grammatical and I don't quite understand what you mean. At WP:SOFTWARE what do they recommend? The next part is an English sentence, but it isn't completely clear to me: "I think the WikiProject has the notability proposal and should set the precedent." Which WikiProject? Presumably you mean WP:SOFTWARE. I have no idea what that WikiProject has to do with this article. This article is not about software. It is not in any software-related categories. It is about servers. The closest relative would actually be WP:WEBSITES, although some chess servers are not really websites as they do not use HTTP. Quale (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

@Mkdw: Your interpretation of WP:CSC is still wrong on a couple basic points. The WP:CSC guideline doesn't say anything about having to be a specific grouping of chess servers, it just has to be verifiably a member of a group. The specific group is Internet chess servers. I really don't know how anyone could read the page and not understand that. Second, are you denying that the list is short? Finally, are you claiming a complete list would include hundreds of entries? Prove it. The list doesn't have hundreds of entries now, so there's no reason to prune it. If it ever does grow to hundreds of entries, then it can be pruned. Quale (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Quale, there is no need to say things like "I really don't know how anyone could read the page and not understand that." You still have not addressed the guideline on the fundamental point, and ultimately by ignoring it, your interpretation is incorrect. You must provide your source that shows the servers are from a complete and verifiable list of members of 'Internet chess servers'. I do not need to prove that it is not a complete list. I merely need to contest it. If you disagree with who should prove what, then I recommend you take the guideline to RfC for changes. The burden of evidence lies with you to provide a reliable source. I am not confused about software versus servers. If you read the full comment you would have actually seen that WP:SOFTWARE was actually an old essay and I removed the template. Since you're still bringing it up, I encourage you to check the history of the essay/proposed guideline, which as stated again can be found at WP:NSOFTWARE. Here, let me help you with my typo. "they recommend for server lists [to] not hav[e] entries that do not have their own article." That sentence is beside the point considering it's not applicable. Sorry if that 'for' instead of a 'to' confused you in thinking it was a comment that parsed in something else.(that's a joke) Mkdw^talk 04:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason to say what I said is that you were the one who claimed the article is not about a specific group. The article is very clearly about a specific group, so I'm curious how you could not understand that. You also brought WP:SOFTWARE into this. I don't understand why you would do that if you understood the difference between servers and software—it makes no sense. Yeah, it's great that you retract that now, but how do you you make that mistake to begin with? Finally, I think you still misinterpret WP:CSC. I don't think it's required that the list currently or always contain all members of the group, only that it is intended to include them all and that if that is done that the list would be a manageable size. You were the one who underlined "However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list", so presumably you attach some special significance to it here. So, would a complete list of internet chess servers include hundreds of entries? If not, then why did you bring it up? Yet another mistake? Quale (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

One more bit for you, that's from a guideline that's even simpler and more fundamental than WP:CSC. See WP:LISTN, which is part of WP:N:

"Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."

I think that's pretty clear. The only part that cause trouble is "at their discretion", because I don't think your discretion shows any common sense. Quale (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that is clear is that we don't agree on the interpretation. I still must disagree with you. In regards to your question about mistakes and "common sense", it would appear that other editors such as Mark viking and Hefha72 seem to agree with my assessment whereas no other editors have come forward to support your interpretation. Arguably by a show of those involved it would seem my common sense is more common than yours. I think we'll continue to disagree over the inclusion criteria and thus forth cancel each other out. The arguments have been laid out and we should let the other editors decide the consensus. Mkdw^talk 10:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I support Quale, the above quotation from WP:LISTN is very clear, and if it contradicts or is inconsistent with interpretation of WP:CSC, that's unfortunate. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC) p.s. Didn't you just open an SPI case that User:Hefha72 may be a meatpuppet of User:OGBranniff!? And User:Mark viking has been active WP editor for approx 3 months (so, I'm not sure how much confidence that lends your case re matters of policy debate).

I wouldn't advise going into an argument about how to discount people's opinions. The SPI is not complete and all parties are still considered innocent. Using time on Wikipedia as a measure of understanding it's ludicrous. If Mark viking has spent large portions of time time reading wiki policies and voting in AfD's (which he has) he is certainly entitled to his interpretation and perhaps even more well read than some decade long editors here.

Quale, while an expert in chess, is not familiar how many chess servers there are out there. If he knew, he would not have based large portions of his argument on the fact. Related questions and statements like "prove it" are an indication of this.

A simple WP:SET revealed hundreds of servers.

1. Lechenicher SchachServer
2. Chess Tactics Server
3. Caissa online chess server
4. German ICS
5. Correspondence Chess Server
6. Chess friends
7. Chess.com
8. Sourceforge Internet Chess Server
9. Free Blubbie Chess Server
10. Chess Here Online
11. Lasker Chess Server
12. Cumnor Chess Server

The above list outnumbers the current list and all results were found on page one of my search except for the last one which found by randomly selecting page 40 of the results. If you would like to filter the 184,000 results for duplicates, mirrors, discussions, and downloads, you may do so though I believe even with such parsing you will find the number in the hundreds. Keep in mind how simple and low cost it is to host a server with chess software. To have a list in the hundreds that would be indiscriminate to entries not needing to show notability is not supported by any policy on Wikipedia. Mkdw^talk 06:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"Using time on Wikipedia as a measure of understanding it's ludicrous." That would be news for !voters at RfAs, who often weigh an applicant's experience and length of service as a criteria for weighing their breadth & depth of policy understanding. (Are you prepared to tell the RfA !voters their criteria is "ludicrous"? I'd like to see what would happen if you did.) You are the editor who had suspicions enough to open SPI investigation on the two users that you are now claiming are the support that outnumbers Quale's. (Something is wrong with that logic.)

The fear that the list may grow indescriminately in size is based on a theoretic analysis, there's nothing in the real world yet to even suggest it is an issue. Even if your analysis is intact, without real-world problems, ... it reminds me of the fable about the "sky falling". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Experience and understanding are generally defined as separate in RFAs. Editors who participate in RFA discussions use their time and edits as a measure of experience -- not understanding. This is why admins who have not participated in AFDs are often opposed even though they've been long-time editors. The value of experience is that you gain both understanding and application as opposed to only understanding. A user can read something and understand it, but will still remain inexperienced. As far as the sky is falling, I'm not certain there is some theoretical line that needs to be crossed. It was a concern before I got here as more than a third of the entries were black links and being reverted by several editors. The idea that it should get bad before we fix things or maintain an article is reminds me of 'what's the worst that could happen' and letting things go (joke). Mkdw^talk 07:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

In case you missed it, the reversions were centered on Chess.com, and User:OGBranniff, who initiated the Chess.com AfD, and has been removing Chess.com from the list, obviously had a bad experience there, as can be witnessed by his comments including to Chess.com site managers, leading to his block. I appreciate the logic of wanting to maintain the article strictly to preempt any future problem, but you're exaggerating the numbers here, it has always been a relatively short list. (In chess there is a saying, "Respond only to direct threats - not imagined ones." In my experience in the business world, and surely WP is a business, your logic of perfect maintenance in order to preempt future hypothetic problems, I doubt would be accepted. [I once pointed out a failure waiting to happen based on the logic of an existing system, and though my supervisor agreed with my analysis, advised me that no preemptive change proposal would be accepted unless a business case could be made to demonstrate damage had been done to justfy my change. Though I still don't sympathize with that way of managing things and wouldn't manage them that way myself, I can see that line of reasoning makes some kind of sense to business people balancing cost–benefit, etc. But in my case had the failure occurred my company would have suffered $ damages, whereas for this little WP article there is no possible harm to anything or anyone at any time or to any extent, that a few strokes of the keyboard can't correct.]) Your "what's the worse that could happen" joke might make sense in a different real world situation, but here there is no punch-line as the article can be restored to an earlier status in seconds. Your fear is exaggerated as well as unfounded on anything not hypothetics. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This has never been about a response to a hypothetical problem. It has always been about the policies/guidelines. WP:LISTN clearly cites WP:CSC where it directs editors to use their discretion to limit list. In the cited guideline, CSC, states 'However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." The guideline means now, not when the list is completed. If we know that a complete list, that is indiscriminate to any entry regardless of notability, would be in the hundreds, we should follow the guideline in that a notability standard should be used. Plain and simple. To suggest its a pre-emptive challenge against a hypothetical problem is not the case. I've found this debate to be very enjoyable and engaging. Good points on all sides. Mkdw^talk 10:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I am no wikipedian, nor have any clear ideas of what the standard of "notability" means, I find it strange that chess.com does not appear on that list. A google or yahoo search for "chess" yields that site before other entries (wikipedia article on the game is second in google). If the list is too long, I would take one out to make chess.com in. For instance, I had never hear of chesscube before reading that page, and the corresponding article claims 31 000 registered users for chesscube which is roughly the number of members online on chess.com at any moment.31.205.92.41 (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. All hail the mighty "Google" Blackhat SEOs! Ok, when you start a site called "Googlepedia," you can have as many mentions of "Chess.com" as you would like. Maybe if you had any clear idea of what "the standard of notability means," you would not make such fatuous claims. Thank you for playing, though. OGBranniff (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The IP editor had a reasonable point reasonably made. Your reply, on the other hand, was far from civil. If you cannot discuss things without this kind of attitude then perhaps you need a time out? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I confess I haven't yet read all of the extensive arguments above, so my concerns may have been addressed already. However, I want to provide my overall feedback on the current situation as both a reader and an editor. I think we need to take a step back and consider what would be best for readers of Wikipedia, considering for example Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules and Wikipedia:NOTSTATUTE. I have some familiarity with online chess, and it's odd to me that FIDE Online Arena (which isn't even operational yet) has its own stub article, yet Chess.com (a huge site with over 10k users online at any given time) does not.

Chess.com has (by their count) 7.8mm registered users, making it at least 5 times larger than any other site in this list, and in some cases hundreds of times larger. Some of the sites in this list aren't even operational anymore. If I knew nothing of Wikipedia policies, I'd think the current list was simply wrong.

Perhaps the central question is notability. Are we certain that Chess.com is less notable than these other sites? I think we're at risk of assuming that the current articles make correct decisions about notability, but that may not be the case. Sometimes articles are created by people with a particular interest in the subject, so the current selection may be an accident of history.

OGBranniff I think you were too dismissive on this question, and somewhat rude, especially considering these are new Wikipedia users (who came here to suggest improvements, which we should assume are offered in good faith). Chess.com's notability can certainly be established, as there are plenty of Chess.com contributions from current Grandmasters, International Masters, etc. You can easily see this for yourself if you simply visit the site.

I realize that creation of a Chess.com article (and/or deletion of other articles) is a separate question. But since significant discussion has already begun here, it should continue. Proxyma (talk) 06:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Some facts:

• Your Chess.com's notability can certainly be established conflicts with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess.com.
• The article lead's This is a list of notable internet chess servers was added by an editor *after* the debate whether or not Chess.com is includable had petered out. So the debate was about whether or not this List article can contain items that aren't notable.
• You're addressing User:OGBranniff above, but that editor is "a sock puppet of Wiki brah and has been blocked indefinitely".
• WP:Notability is not a function of site membership size, so I don't see any point in bringing up size if the list is notability-based.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I definitely believe that Chess.com is notable, but the link shouldn't be added until an article is written. As for OGB, he dislikes the website mainly because he got banned from it. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what notability would be based on today in light of the above-linked AfD. Re the header, "List of chess servers with a Wikipedia article", IMO it's a poor qualifier for the List for a few reasons: I don't think WP should be referring to itself; the meaning of "an article exists" would be different between editor and non-editor readers; excluding servers without articles but that meet WP:GNG seems like it will just confuse and/or frustrate editors wanting to add to the List. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

More agreement with User:Mkdw

Hello. I also agree with Mkdw's view of notability being required for an entry in this list. There are literally hundreds of internet-based chess servers. We should keep the list to those servers that have demonstrated notability sufficient to deserve an article on Wikipedia according to its own standards for notability. Like said earlier, this is not an issue of a "hypothetical problem," or simply put, "If it aint broke dont fix it," but an issue of Wikipedia policies and standards. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I see no basis here for claiming either a consensus, or a superior read on policy. (Quale, User 166.82.205.115, JunoBeach, and I oppose the list item removals. Quale has pointed out WP:LISTN which no one has refuted.) But don't make any mistake that I might discuss this with you - I won't, due to your past conduct on the topic at User talk:166.82.205.115 and elsewhere. Goodnight. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The claim that an item must have an article to be listed is bogus. Notability applies to the entire article not every item in it. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 03:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your view. However, could you please state your policy rationale for that view? User:Mkdw did an admirable job parsing the "list" criteria to postulate a persuasive argument that only "notable" sites should be included. All you did was state a conclusion with no support. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:NNC Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Except WP:NNC directly states, "with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items" so it actually seems to support the opposite. Mkdw^talk 02:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Where does this list restrict inclusion to notable items? I don't see "notable" or any similar language in the article Quale (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC to resolve whether Chess.com may be included in article list

As the above discussion shows, there's disagreement regarding policy, whether Chess.com is or isn't permitted to be an item in the article list. (~3 editors feel it isn't permitted on basis that all items listed must meet notability equal to that required to support their own stand-alone articles. ~4 editors feel policy does not make that requirement and Chess.com is qualified to be a member of the list; a mention of Chess.com occurs in a NYTimes article linked above.) Thank u. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, an RFC is a good idea. How is this going to work, exactly? Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Having been a WP:3O offered third opinions in the past elsewhere, I have found it helpful for the incoming RFC to not read a wall of text, but simply each person involved write a short summary of their argument. It's best to avoid argumentatively responses to each other's arguments and simply present the best possible argument on policy/guideline merits. Mkdw^talk 22:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool, good idea also. Do we do it here or on another page? Who wants to start? Rather, or do we wait for User:Ihardlythinkso to kick this shindig off? OGBranniff (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

extended misunderstanding

Mkdw, you just said there was a WP:3O. Having difficulty finding it. Can you give a date or link? Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You mean WP:3O? There's also WP:DR that offers a few helpful alternatives. Mkdw^talk 19:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You wrote "Having been a WP:3O in the past". Having difficulty finding a previous 3O case on this topic. Can you give a date or link? (Or did you mean something else?) Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood what I wrote. The full sentence is "Having been a WP:3O in the past, it would be helpful for the incoming RFC to not read a wall of text, but simply each person involved write a short summary of their argument". There has never been a request for a 3O regarding this topic. Mkdw^talk 20:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I thought you were referring to a past WP:3O item when you wrote "Having been a WP:3O in the past". I still don't know what you mean with that, but I don't need to know. (You answered my Q. There was no past WP:3O item.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see your intended meaning! I can see how that would be unclear but in the context of the full sentence makes a bit of sense. 3O is simply an acronym for third opinion, and I was referring to having been one of these people Category:Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions Mkdw^talk 00:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

So you were referring to *yourself*! (Clear now. But everyone here gave their opinion, and no one referred to their opinion as a "WP:3O", except you, which, has a specific context.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't referring that I gave a third opinion here. The whole point of my sentence was that having been someone coming in as a third opinion, having done it myself in the past elsewhere, that it's very difficult to read a wall of text and gauge what should be done, hence my subsequent suggestion. Even if that first part was unclear, the rest of my suggestion is fairly straight. Mkdw^talk 02:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, I don't think the way the RfC is designed that it will resolve much. The problem has not been a lack of opinions unlike most cases that go to RfC's (about six on the discussion page and another six in the edits). The discussion has had plenty of people weight in and because this RfC is not formatted in a oppose/support consensus straw poll at a specific change, people coming to comment will either reiterate previous arguments or add new ones. Mkdw^talk 00:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. Please don't take this to be a snide comment, for I don't mean it as such, and I know that "Ihardlythinkso" have butted heads in the past. I would like to start a fresh and be conciliatory toward him and everyone here. My question is, that this is a "request for comment," but nobody's commenting. What shall we do? Thanks. OGBranniff (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• I do not see any reason for not including chess.com that is in policy. A person mentioned other policies but they are different policies like software. I see a lot of lists on here that do not have only blue links. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Response. That comment is more like "Other stuff exists." Two wrongs don't make a right. Chess.com is not notable. OGBranniff (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• • The normal justification for red link items in lists is that they clearly are going to be notable, either obviously or indicated by a reference, but it's just that the articles haven't been written yet, & thus they serve as guides to needed articles. Many lists have red link items without any apparent or obvious justification, and generally the thing to do is to remove them. However, this is not a hard-and-fast rule, A list that provides significant information about the items rather than just listing them can justify doing so on the basis that notability does not apply to content of articles, and that the information is sufficient to make them subarticles. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

But the specific facts here are the "Chess.com" article has been deleted four times, including three speedy deletions, for being patently non-notable. Therefore, an article on that site will hardly ever be "needed" nor re-written, unless the site somehow jumps exponentially in coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Note OGBranniff has been banned as a sockpuppet. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

There is something peculiar going on though, is there not? I agree that, as the policy stands, the list should be not a list of internet chess servers, but a list of articles about internet chess servers which are on wikipedia. The question is, how has it come to pass that some internet chess servers with fewer members, total, than chess.com sometimes has online at any one time, are notable, and chess.com is not. Either they have bad PR, or these things are not talked about in quite the same way as the way which acquires notability. My view would be that it's probably because chess.com is more than a 'playing' site, so a lot of the content which would normally be about it, but elsewhere, actually goes up on the site itself. Jdc (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I was surprised, after all the discussion on this article, to see no citations establishing list notability. So I added the best I could find. I also reworded the lead to show how selection criteria can be specified - if a consensus emerges that only notable sites should be included. Per WP:LSC, the selection criterion should be specified in the lead. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of "unreliable" sources

The references I provided were deleted and an Unreferenced tag added. Even if it were true that the sources are unreliable, this is rather heavy handed. Better to tag the article with Refimprove and discuss reliability of sources here. However, I suggest taking a closer look at WP:USERG: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Susan Polgar, a chess grandmaster, satisfies those criteria. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Lichess

It's an interesting one, it's free and open source, developed in Scala by a French software developer named Thibault Duplessis. There are no ads, you don't need to download anything, you don't even need to register. As far as I can tell he pays the $170 per month hosting costs out of his own pocket, with the odd donation. For some reason it is very popular in Iran. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

- I also suggest, to add lichess.org to the list. Marquis4057 (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Chesstempo

This is popular service about chess training. What you think about it? Dawid2009 (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Think about it in what sense? As in is it a good service? Or should it be included here? Lists like this tend to defer to articles to be the venue where notability is discussed. In other words, if we have an article about it, include it; if not, maybe write the article first? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Chessworld.net

Hi Guys

Maybe www.chessworld.net can't be listed because it is not important enough. But please can I (as webmaster, yes I am biased) at least ask here for future consideration especially if the list of servers grows in the future - there are some review sources like ICCF e.g. https://amici.iccf.com/issues/issue_08/issue_08_ChessWorld_net_review.html - a lot of ICCF players and GMs have used it over the years. But if it is not important enough, please just confirm here, and I will have to accept that. There are more important things to worry about.

Best wishes Tryfon Gavriel

Kingscrusher (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kingscrusher: Wikipedia has very few lists which attempt to be exhaustive (think discographies, lists of presidents, etc.). Everything else is a list of notable examples, and "notable" for our purposes typically means "has an article on Wikipedia". It's not excluded because it's not important, but because it doesn't have an article (which can be considered a kind of importance, but based more on the existence of coverage in reliable sources than some objective sense of what does/doesn't matter). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)