Template talk:Algebraic notation

Is the image a good thing?

Is the little graphic of the chessboard a good idea? In my opinion (a) WP:Hatnotes should be inobtrusive, and (b) the little chessboard makes the hatnote more obtrusive and annoying. I think the WP guidelines agree with me, see WP:Hatnotes#Format. Adpete (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

For me, I don't have opinion. It's certainly an eye-catcher, maybe overkill. If placement is with the TOC (best IMO), depending how long lead paragraphs are, the TOC might nowt be so close to the top, making eye-catcher quality even more important if move notations occur in the lead. (I thought the orig notation alert, the single line of text at top of article with disambiguation messages, was fine. Was there something which made it necessary to change it?) Thx, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Adpete, would making it softer-looking (ala gray & white squares not black & white squares) help to make it less obtrusive do you think? (I tried this in Sandbox, and I think it improves the situation. The eye-catcher quality needn't be so glaring.) I'm also going to introduce idea at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What if put just 1.e4 instead of an image? OTAVIO1981 (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That might piss-off 1.d4 players! :) Also, "1.e4" is "text", and text always begs to be "read". (Which could just introduce a new bit of distraction and annoyance.) A chessboard symbol does not do that.

The image is softer now. IMO that solved the problem. But there has been no feedback from members. It's hard to know anything without member feedback. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(Maybe if I changed the chessboard symbol from gray to pink, then there would be some feedback!?) :) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

OTAVIO I have a question ... The tag doesn't seem to be a hatnote (acc. definition of hatnote). Was there a reason to change from the previous hatenote, to the tag? Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't know. I just give an idea as an option. I thought a chessboard doesn't explain what is algebric notation and what is expected in the article. 1.e4 or any other notation could explain better the situation. But the actual colors of the chessboard looks fine to me. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The change to a sidenote was done after the deletion nomination, where some contributors said this was the "correct" way to do a self-refential note. This change, plus the image, I notice was added by an editor who doesn't usually edit chess articles.[1] Personally I think the sidenote is ugly, and the chessboard makes it uglier still; because both changes make the note more obstrusive. I think we should change it back. p.s. The obstrusiveness is the way it takes up space and gives an extra image, so I don't think the grey + white helps either way. Adpete (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay now I understand you. I re-read the TfD. Here's a summary on hatenote vs side box discussion in the TfD:

Thumperward said side box was the proper way for the algebraic message instead of hatenote. You agreed, but voted to keep the hatenote, saying it was appropriate on articles containing lots of moves. Sjakkalle questioned Thumperward's claim the message was inappropriate for a hatenote, saying hatnote use might be just fine (but he didn't offer if he thought one or the other was better). Thumperward said he would probably change to side box after the TfD closed. Bubba73 told Thumperward to go ahead with side box if it was a better way to display the algebraic message.

So, there really wasn't much (or even any) discussion on hatenote vs side box. And no discussion at all about what symbol was included in the side box.

For me, I don't have any opinion on hatenote vs side box. And on the symbol, I take back my earlier opinion that the symbol is better than "1. e4". (So, I have no opinion on either point now.) My involvement has been limited to trying to mitigate the new side box Thumperward created, thru placement options, and thru toning the symbol down via color-softening. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Adpete, I removed the chessboard symbol, reduced text point size, and shortened the Side box. (Do you think it lowered the Side box obtrusiveness sufficiently?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this but I'm starting to change my mind back... sort of. I think the chessboard is fine in articles which are mainly chess moves, but I think it looks odd (with or without the chess board) in chess biographies, due to the placement. So I think my real problem is with the placement, not the graphic. Perhaps the solution is a section wide template, "This section uses algebraic" (rather than article) to put inline in chess biographies and background article, where algebraic plays a minor role. In that case it works better as a single line (rather than a sidebar) because there is no table of contents to put it next to. Then for the articles which are mainly chess moves (e.g. openings pages) where the template is next to the TOC and rather prominent, the chess board would be OK. Adpete (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Adpete, Bubba also has feeling the notation alert s/b placed on bios differently, his thoughts are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#new "chess notation". (Should we go there, or invite him here?)

Second, I'd like to start by truely understanding the solution-idea you're suggesting, I'm not sure I do. Do you mean a page-wide, skinny box containing the notation alert, and placing at beginning of a section containing moves? (First such section, or each section?) Or instead a line of text at the beginning of section(s) – no box? Or?

Third, generalized solution-ideas for placement in bios is great, but a general idea-plan can easily break down once one starts trying to apply to specific cases (articles). So to guard against the inefficiency of that, I think it's best to discuss in terms of specific articles, as points to drive the discussion.

That said, to start things off here are three articles, they are all different (I'd like to understand your placement idea for them): Wilhelm Steinitz, Ashot Nadanian, Edgard Colle.

In Steinitz, the only chess moves are in a diagram ("show") in sub-section "Playing strength and style".

In Nadaniam, there are two sections containing moves, the sections are separated: "Chess theoretician" and "Notable games".

In Colle, the moves occur in the single article section after the lead. (With the current status of that article, which is a bio article, you're not satisfied with the placement of the notation side box? How would you make it better?)

Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This is mostly a recap of what I've said at the Chess Project page. About 2 or 3 years ago someone objected to the notation tag (as it was at the time) being at the top of biographies, since it is usually far down in the article where chess notation is used. At that time I was against moving them to the first section that contained moves. I thought it was better to be consistent and put them all at the top.

I like this new box to the side of the TOC. It doesn't bother the editors that didn't like the line at the top, the box makes it stand out nicely, and it uses space that would otherwise be wasted. As far as the biographies, I see the point of the editors that think they should go in the first section that has moves. So maybe there should be a second one that says "this section uses algebraic notation..." and it can be used in biographies.

Personally I don't have a strong preference either way for biographies - either next to the TOC or in the section with the moves. Either is OK with me, but I think most other articles should have the notation box to the side of the TOC. There are a few other articles that could use the section box, if it is implemented. For instance, some articles talk about a tournament and then have some games near the end. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Adpete, besides my Qs above, some technical Qs about proposed boxes ... You mentioned it wasn't the chessboard symbol which bothers you, rather placement. Does that mean you like a small chessboard symbol back (I could introduce a tiny one) in the boxes (both left-placed and right-placed box? skinny section box?) Also, if we define a long skinny box for a section, I'm wondering how long it can really be, since many times section underscore lines don't run all the way across screen, but stop short due to images placed right, etc., if {{clear}} isn't used (which happens a lot). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Going ahead a little bit, I added 'pos=section' parm to the template, for trial. (To see it used, visit Akiba Rubinstein.) Is that what was in mind? (Again am unsure about screen widths ... on my screen it is section-width long, but on Bubba's screen am guessing it will wrap – yuck! (What to do? Shorten it? How much?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Update: I shortened the section-level tag. (It helps too, in articles like Vasily Smyslov, where a screen-width tag would have pushed the photo image down, unnecessarily.)

More update: I added right-placement option for the section-level tag, since that can save vertical space (examples Susan Polgar and Akiba Rubinstein). But left-placement option is most useful for articles like Vasily Smyslov (otherwise the section photo image gets pushed down unnecessarily). So now 'pos=secright' and 'pos=secleft' replace 'pos=section'.

Going ahead further still, I added a reduced chessboard symbol to all tags, for trial. (Of course, the tag is a bit longer therefore, for left- or right-positioned tags.) Let me know feedback. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think for sections, a single line is best, like the old hatnote. Kind of like the "Main article" template at (picking an article at random), Barack_Obama#Early_life_and_career. As for the 3 examples mentioned: Wilhelm Steinitz and Edgard Colle contain so few chess moves that I'd say no template is needed at all. Simply being able to click through on the move or opening name is enough. Ashot Nadanian is complicated by the fact that (in my opinion) the article has rather a bit too much unencyclopedic detail. If his opening novelties really were important it would be a matter of having links to the appropriate openings page, so the "algebraic notation" sign on the section on his opening novelties wouldn't be necessary. So short answer would be, a note at the start of the games section is what that article would need. All of that is strictly IMHO. Adpete (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That's easy enough to do, but let's face it, without the box it returns to being a hatenote (not like a hatenote). After reading Template:Dablink and Template:Hatnote templates documentation, all of the uses and examples re hatenote have to do with disambiguation (mostly at article level, sometimes section level, but always dab).

The template currently produces side boxes w/ different placement options. To add option where the template also produces a hatnote ... that seems kindof mixed up to me. And goes cross-grain re the explicit dab function of hatenotes. (If there were even one example of a hatnote doing other than disambituation, I'd feel better about it, but haven't seen any, have you?)

Again, it's simple matter to code the hatnote option for use in sections, but if template {{algebraic notation}} produces sometimes side box, sometimes hatenote, that seems questionable to me and I'd want ProjChess consensus first before adding it. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

In Wilhelm Steinitz you felt no template needed. But wouldn't that leave a reader who knows the moves, but not the notation, in a bit of a lurch?

I think it raises a question, too, what is the purpose of the {{algebraic notation}} template? When should it be used or not used? (Should it be applied whenever moves occur in an article? Or only when a certain quantity of moves? Or only when a certain quantity of moves, when there also aren't any accompanying wikilinks? Or?)

For time being I've added two new sidebox options for diagram level: 'pos=egright' and 'pos=egleft'. (Please see Wilhelm Steinitz, where I replaced the article-level tag. And other bio articles too, see below.)

So, total current sidebox options to-date comprise:

• pos=right ............ (article-level, right) *default*
• pos=left ............... (article-level, left)
• pos=tocleft .......... (article-level, left with TOC)
• pos=secright ...... (section-level, right) examples: Akiba Rubinstein, Susan Polgar, Aron Nimzowitsch, Erich Eliskases, François-André Danican Philidor (subsection use!)
• pos=secleft ......... (section-level, left) examples: Vasily Smyslov, Boris Spassky, Edmar Mednis, George H. D. Gossip, Svetozar Gligorić
• pos=egright ........ (diagram-level, right) examples: Wilhelm Steinitz, Emanuel Lasker, Alexander Alekhine, Susan Polgar, Judit Polgar
• pos=egleft ........... (diagram-level, left) no uses/examples yet!

Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Adpete, regarding your thoughts on Ashot Nadanian, you're saying the article is good with a section tag on "Notable games" section, but not on "Chess theoretician" section, because you disagree how the latter section is written (too much detail, can be replaced by links, etc.). But that is not really a way to proceed, re notation tags. (Because, the way the article stands, there are chess moves in that section, and the section is distanced from the "Notable games section", leaving a reader in a lurch if he knows chess moves but not notation. Your solution involves edit changes to the article, which could potentially be opposed by other editors, who might maintain that at least some moves should be retained there rather than linked. What consensus would be reached, and how long would it take? Or would the discussion be abondaoned and no change made? Meanwhile, the moves are in the section, the reader is still in his lurch. (The point is, the current status of the article needs a section notation tag, for as long as the section contains moves. If later a consensus to do surgery on the section and remove all moves is agreed, then the section-level tag could be removed. The notatioin tag, present-or-not, really shouldn't wait for article surgery and consensus-forming. Notation tags are easy to apply or remove; consensus and article surgery are not. So the former shouldn't wait on the latter. Your solution might be an ultimate solution, but not an immediate way to proceed re notation tags. [Which is what my Q was about.]) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Bubba, Adpete feels no template is needed on Edgard Colle, because there are too few moves there. How do you feel about it? (Again, I think it raises question about purpose of the notation tag itself: when to use, when not. My presumption was whenever chess moves occur in an article, but clearly Adpete doesn't share same presumption. [A priority question here, since no point discussing how is the best way to present notation tag for an article, if there's no agree whether an article gets a tag or not.])

As explained above, I went ahead and made right/left diagram-level options and applied e.g. to Wilhelm Steinitz, but again, Adpete feels the article s/ go without tag due to insufficient number of moves there. (So it's the same matter.) And also available now are right/left section-level tags (alternative to article-level tag, e.g. for Edgar Colle). Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Bubba / Adpete, I finished updating all the bio articles I ever touched, and was able to replace the article-level tag in all of them. (Most were pretty easy, about a dozen were more challenging, and 3–4 were even more challenging.) I've concluded, an article-level tag can always be avoided in a bio article, with the flexibility of having the other tags at one's disposal. (One of the fallacies I had was regarding moves in the lead. But the lead is supposed to be a summary, not present unique info, so a tag can go in the body while ignoring the lead. [I'm sure you knew that already!] In some cases, two tags were really needed. But two tags in the body of a bio article, are better than an article-level tag in the lead, I'm sure you agree.) Anyway, I updated the template doc (Template:Algebraic notation) accordingly, let me know if you think it's too detailed, too confusing, or any other comment. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

On 11-14-2011 the quarter checkerboard symbol in notation tag was changed to "1.e4" (symbol). This was OTAVIO's idea (why do I call him "OCTAVIO"?!), is probably okay to Adpete [less obtrusive, more consistent w/ hatnote etc.], and preferred by Bubba. Input by those who care, always welcomed of course. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I also like the "e4-move". Looks much better now. --MrsHudson (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Whitespace on pos=toc

When this template is used with the pos=toc switch, it adds some extra whitespace under the table of contents, which wouldn't otherwise be there. For example: Bishop (chess). Is this avoidable? --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

three flavors?

Try as I might but I cannot see any difference between the first and second flavor.

Please add an explanation what is different between |pos=left and |pos=secleft for instance because I sure can't see any. Thx CapnZapp (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

"Pos=secleft" changes the text in the box from "This article uses algebraic notation to describe chess moves." to "This section uses algebraic notation to describe chess moves." From a UI standpoint this is pretty goofy. Dan Bloch (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

template for descriptive notation?

We have a template for algebraic notation - apparently consensus is this is sufficiently novel and unused among our viewers that an explanation is needed, and: fair enuff.

But I can't find any corresponding template for descriptive notation and am asking: do we have one? Why or why not? CapnZapp (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia only uses algebraic notation (per WP:CHESSNOTATION), so there's no template for descriptive notation. Dan Bloch (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)