Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Fork (chess)

Is the caption to the first diagram at Fork (chess) too long? I don't think that the diagram is meant to be an actual position, I think it is to illustrate two forks. The caption goes on and on as if it were intended to be an actual position. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that is quite lengthy for an introductory diagram, and likely confuses the reader.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Treating a demo position as a game! (I think the author was attempting to show how a fork isn't necessarily inescapable. But there are better ways to do that.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree. The article should define what a fork is first. Later in the body it can get into more details. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

All issues of "Wiener Schachzeitung" now online!

Most (all?) issues of the historic "Wiener Schachzeitung" (Viennese chess newspaper) are now online, courtesy of the National Library of Austria. Time for an article, no?

(It mentions issues in 1948/49. The archive did have content for 1949 but it has been removed.)

(from Portal_talk:Chess) --71.174.165.23 (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That's great ! Thanks for pointing that out ! SyG (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Grand Prix

Created the article FIDE Grand Prix 2012–2013 and a template at the bottom of the site. Feel free to add info, references or correct anything. They seem biannually now, there are future ones on the FIDE calendar too. -Koppapa (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

FideID

Request moved from User talk:DrTrigon to this page in order to find a consensus:

Hello DrTrigon,

In your code for FideID= in template {{Infobox chess player}}, a timestamp is generated after the rating, to look like this:

2780 (August 2012)

Is it possible to change it, to look instead like this?:

2780 (August 2012)

Previously, it's been common practice to express both FIDE rating timestamp and Peak rating timestamp in the <small> font, so, many Peak rating data in Infoboxes still have this. If FideID= can be changed, then the two timestamp presentations can match again (i.e. have consistent appearance).

Thanks for your consider! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of this. I consider this use of small text in infoboxes to be a blight. It's already hard enough to read, and the parentheses make a clear enough break between the dates and ratings. The date is important, and fewer gratuitous style variations in Wikipedia would make it cleaner and easier to read. Quale (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Quale on this. The text on the righthand side is already a bit smaller than I would like it to be before zooming in. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Explanation: I didn't make up the small font, I had seen it used a lot in players' infoboxes. (Who started it? I presumed it was a ProjChess convention.) I thought it made sense, since by being smaller, it puts more attention/importance on the rating, the purpose of the data line. So I've changed quite a few infoboxes, making timestamps small font that weren't, usually this meant "Peak rating", as usually timestamps were mostly already small font for "FIDE rating". I made these changes usually when already in the infobox to remove a flag. No one objected for approximately the last year, so the request to User:DrTrigon was based on desire for consistency, about what I presumed was a convention started "before my time". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Here is an example what I mean, User:Sun Creator added small font on infobox ratings back in 2009, see: Yannick Pelletier edit. (The small font shows until even today. Clearly was preference of User:Sun Creator. So without discussion re convention, how can anyone know what is preferred?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Have seen use of small font for "inactive" like at Garry_Kasparov. Also "World ranking" FIDE lists data ala Anand Viswanathan. For me I have no problem reading the smaller font, and it seems to have some utility as mentioned. But to me the important thing is consistency (consistent presentation). But as in chess notation, conventions or consensus re same are hard to come by, discussions have always "died" regarding the details, as few ProjChess members contribute to those discussions, at least any recent one, presumably due to little interest in the details. That's (additional) reason I didn't open a thread on this one, like notation conventions, there are few conventions and inconsistent presentation re notation remains unresolved due to no consensuses even when broken up into "doables" as per MoS thread (which I also did not open, but opened by another editor who involed himself, after I questioned replaceing "Bxe5" with "B×e5"; and there wasn't even any consensis or convention on same, User:Tony1 insisting "But what about the sources?" all the way thru the end of the discussions).
No doubt this one too will be another "dead limb", and both ways will be applied to articles (persist) until ... whatever year in future. For notation (e.g. O-O vs 0-0) editors use whatever is their personal pref, often undoing one another thru time. It seems essentially the same with small font in infobox issue (personal pref), except it's even less cared about, so there's not even one example of undoing between editors have ever seen. I think it's fair to say there is little care to conventionalize these details, and at same time enough care to thwart new convention formation. So the end is inconsistent presentation based on personal prefs. And "that's just fine". (But also, not "encyclopedic".) Of course it is easier to not form new convention, than to form. The result is increased collection of inconistent presentation details. But it seems the pertinent Q is (and continues to be): "Who cares?!" (And, I already "got that", from earlier re notation discusses.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
What about beeing brave and "just do it" (?) - to me it looks like this is more a matter of "gusto" than a matter of correct or wrong presentation or article content. And as you mentioned that does not raise any strong feelings or discussions so you can assume other people to have no oppinion regarding this... ;) When looking at the example you gave (Viswanathan Anand), what came to my mind was the fact that there are 2 pieces of information put into brackets, may be it is of some use if they have different sizes - so I would tend to use

2780 (August 2012) (other stuff)

except you have a good idea how to solve such double-brackets in general? (keep in mind that the first bracket comes from the template)
(btw.: regarding consistency; that is another good thing that comes with DrTrigonBot, since it is a machine it is stupid but consistent... ;)) Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
"[...] except you have a good idea how to solve such double-brackets in general?" Maybe by separating by line (i.e., putting the succeeding bracketed to a new line). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
This is what is done currently, isn't it...!? A better solution would be nice... ;) --DrTrigon (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, the separate line where we see it is effected manually by markup, <br />. Anyway, for Anand Viswanathan, the current "(No. 4 in the May 2012 FIDE World Rankings)" from "rating=" parm is thrown in after the FIDE rating info lookup for "FIDE rating" dataline in the infobox. I see in Template:Infobox chess biography there's a "ranking=" parm, so, to me, that would seem to be a better solution, to exploit that parm for the ranking above to display on its own dataline, without parens. (However, the parm doesn't appear to be picked up and used -- when I specify "ranking=" with the ranking info above, nothing shows up in the infobox.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I assume ProjChess likes the ranking info ("(No. 4 in the May 2012 FIDE World Rankings)") also not small font. That would work even better too (me thinks) if that ranking info were on its own infobox dataline, as above. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
So, how 'bout change this (please ignore the little dots):

FIDE rating ......... 2780 (September 2012)
.......................... (No. 4 in the May 2012 FIDE World Rankings)

to something like this:

FIDE rating ......... 2780 (September 2012)
FIDE ranking ....... No. 4 in world (May 2012)

or like this:

FIDE rating ......... 2780 (September 2012)
FIDE ranking ....... World No. 4 (May 2012)

or this:

FIDE rating .............. 2780 (September 2012)
FIDE world ranking ... No. 4 (May 2012)

or this:

FIDE rating ................ 2780 (September 2012)
FIDE World Ranking ... No. 4 (May 2012)

(Again, I don't know why this can't already be the case, since there is already "ranking=" parm in the chess biography infobox [doc file, but not the template code apparently].) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Now at the current point I would assume we have a consensus here since that sounds fine to me and nobody else opposed. So I think it's ok to adopt the {{Infobox chess biography}} template and setup the "ranking=" parm as you mentioned (as I can see this parm is not used at all, even though listed in the docs). In fact I assume this should already have been implemented and was just forgotten by the ones "responsible"... ;) Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the last option listed is the most precise: FIDE World Ranking ... No. 4 (May 2012)
Also, you are the coder (FideID= etc.) so this change is easy for you (right?). And am not so sure or comfortable that lack of particapatory response = consensus. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes I introduced FideID but that was straight forward according to the system alread used in dewiki. I'm afraid to say this but besides this I am not involved with this template... ;) But if there is nobody else that can do this and a strong need for it to be done you can come back to me... ;) Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I put ranking= and peakranking= into Template:Infobox chess player and updated the docs to illustrate them. There a few things that might still need to be worked out, like the order to display rating, peak rating, ranking, and peak ranking. Also some of the longer labels seem to wrap sometimes, which is undesirable. Quale (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't pay close enough attention to the links suggested above so I went my own way. If someone wants to change them, feel free. I'm not really crazy about the FIDE World Rankings page because it's just a bother to keep it up to date. When originally created in 2007 it probably seemed fine to have to update the page four times a year, but now it's every month. The overall portion of the page is currently a month behind, and it looks like the women and juniors are eight months behind. Anyone who wants the current lists should just go to http://ratings.fide.com/toplist.phtml. Quale (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
So did I use it right, at Viswanathan Anand? (It seems, 'ranking=' would be just as much a maintenance headache as 'ratings=' was, and needs lookup program like the FideID= lookup program. [Yes?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I think 'Peak ranking' should reflect the latest date the ranking was achieved, not the earliest. (Does anyone disagree? Initially the earilest date seemed logical to me, since the player never exceeded that ranking. But when a player falls from his peak ranking, it seems more relevant to show his most recent top rank rather than an older date for the same rank. [Ditto for 'Peak rating', when a player holds that rating over multiple FIDE reports, and when only one date is reported in the infobox. At Garry Kasparov, I see that two dates are reported.]) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Reporting multiple dates for 'Peak ranking' could quickly be unwieldy, so a single date should reflect the first date or latest date. (As mentioned I think it should reflect latest date. If anyone disagrees please say. Perhaps Garry Kasparov is a good example case to look at.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Weird. When a player is on his climb, the earliest date achieving 'Peak rating' seems to be more relevant (as in Teimour Radjabov). But when a player declines, as mentioned I think the latest date the peak rating was held is more relevant. (Ideally then, peak rating earliest date or latest date would be a function of whether player is in climb or decline. But that would be confusing and impossible.) IMO since a player will probably be "in decline" from his peak rating longer than his "climb" to that rating, then latest date for peak rating would be relevant longer. (Ditto 'Peak ranking'.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
So, as a test case, I've left a current inconsistency at Teimour Radjabov -- Peak rating shows the earliest date achieved (not the latest), and Peak ranking shows the latest date achieved (not the earliest). Which way should this be resolved? (List two or more dates for Peak rating as in Garry Kasparov? And two or more dates for Peak ranking? Make both Peak rating and Peak ranking earliest date achieved? Or make them latest date achieved?) As before IMO 'peak' is better as latest date achieved. But what do others think? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks good!! Thanks Quale! In my oppinion I would file a delete request for FIDE World Ranking since this page should be summary of info and data we are already showing in infoboxes. The list could be somehow simplified by using User:DrTrigonBot too, but I would simply delete the page! Regarding the maintenance headache 'ranking=' gives if you know a good data source (e.g. like http://ratings.fide.com/download.phtml but with ranking info) we can setup this to be done by bot too! In fact all those infoboxes (and others) that "try" to show actual data are a maintenance headache (that's one of the reasons why I wrote this bot... ;)) Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted the thank the Doctor. I never paid any attention to the magic that makes the current ratings in the infoboxes work. I had always imagined that that would require updating the bio pages of every living player each month, but your solution is much smarter. Only {{Elo rating}} is updated each month, which is clever. Quale (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

David Penkalski notable?

The BLP seems heavy on promotion of its subject, and I doubt meets GNG too. (User:Fae observed same at article Talk.) I won't submit AfD but w/ !vote 'delete' if there is one. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say not notable. Almost all article content was contributed by anons who edited exclusively or almost exclusively on that single page. That strongly suggests WP:COI. Quale (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with this analysis. The article has been created by David Penkalski himself, and I do not see a major chess achievement in the article. I will send it to AfD. SyG (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Similarly, what do you think of the notability of Fadi Malkawi ? SyG (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Generally I am in favor of keeping Chess Olympiad participants as long as the article is not self-promotional and good sources are available, but I don't think that is a consensus view. It may not even be a majority view, as many people in the project do not think that being a member of a weak Olympiad team is sufficient. Some don't believe that being national champion of a weak chess nation is sufficient. I will say that I feel pretty strongly that articles are justified for members of medal-winning Olympiad teams, but that doesn't apply in this case. Quale (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox chess player

Somehow got to presuming was standard to have infobox on chess bio articles, and that an article with lead photo only, say, was somehow incompleted. So have been adding infoboxes. Now have discovered WP:Disinfoboxes! (Saying don't add unless contributes something not in article body.) A clear case (for me) was article Vasja Pirc. (Is article better without infobox or with infobox?) Would like to know what others think. (Is infobox standard/desirable for chess bios? Or case-by-case and only if contributes something? Almost always the info in the infobox is repeated from the chess bio article lead, etc., so by the WP:Disinfoboxes criteria it seems there would be very few infoboxes ever needed for chess bios.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I see the infobox produces calculated age (death date minus birth date), and that info is usually not contained in bio article bodies. (But does that piece of info, age, warrant application of the infoboxes?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:Disinfoboxes is an essay, not policy or even guideline, as the page itself makes clear. You can follow or disregard an essay as you choose. Personally I used to mildly dislike infoboxes in chess player bios, but I have come around to mildly liking them. My one caveat is that I don't think it's ever appropriate to remove information from the article body just because it also appears in the infobox. (Examples include dates and places of birth and death, and the FIDE player profile link.) In my opinion, the infobox is not really part of the article and the article must stand alone without it. Quale (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I prefer an infobox for all players. Player articles are of such differing quality, you simply can't count on all the fundamental info being available in the body text, whereas the process of filling in a box demands that those basic facts are all included and are available at a glance; a real bonus for the busy reader. Particularly useful for checking on current and all time best Elo, which rarely get updated when in the body text. Elo information in the body text can also kill the flow of an article and make it a dull read. And doesn't Elo now get automatically updated direct to the info box? This may make them indispensible for active players, if not for those of Pirc's era. Brittle heaven (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedbacks. (I like too, how the box computes age for living & past personalities, which I think is always interesting & important info about a player. And of course the programmed calc is always more reliable & less burdensome than a manual one.) I think the essay is right that a box creates essentially a "mini-article" separate from main article (which is consistent w/ Quale regarding the main article should stand on its own), but I don't think the box has to "compete" w/ the main article as the essay suggests, nor be "erroneous" or "misleading" if the info is added carefully.

I wanted to be sure about what others thought; the essay does come down pretty hard on unnecessary use, and on editors who use them (to whit & for the record!):

Disinfoboxes tend to be the product of editors interested in uniformity across the encyclopedia over the consideration of what best serves an individual article. These editors are not interested in evaluating the merit or potential usefulness of an infobox within a particular article but are rather interested in placing infoboxes en masse for their apparent professional visual appeal. The result is that these editors often add infoboxes to articles that they have not significantly contributed to or even necessarily accurately comprehended. // So once again we have a "disinfobox" that aggressively attracts the marginally literate eye with apparent promises to contain a reductive summary of information that can't be neatly contained. That promise however is false because the lead already provides a much more effective reductive summary. Like a bulleted list, or a time-line that substitutes for genuine history, this disinfobox offers a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance that is a poor substitute for accuracy and complexity.

Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

World Chess Championship 1921 score

An edit was made to World Chess Championship 1921 today in the scores. But the score for round 3 is definitely wrong (a draw and a loss). Can someone correct the round-by-round scores? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. A quick confirmation shows that their third game was indeed a draw. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

diagrams

The following is from the draw by agreement talk page. It probably applies to all diagrams. I have no idea as how to fix it.

The alt tags are all fscked up - this is what it looks like in a text-only browser: 

Reshevsky vs. Mastichiadis, Dubrovnik 1950
Solid white.svg a          b           c            d            e           f            g            h          Solid white.svg
8               black king black king  black bishop black king   black rook  black king   black king   black king 8
7               black king black pawn  black king   black knight black queen black pawn   black king   black king 7
6               black king black king  black pawn   black king   black king  black king   black pawn   black pawn 6
5               black king white pawn  black king   black pawn   black king  black king   black king   black king 5
4               black king black king  black king   white pawn   black king  black king   black knight black king 4
3               black king black king  white knight white bishop white pawn  white knight white pawn   black king 3
2               black king white queen black king   black king   black king  white pawn   white pawn   black king 2
1               white rook black king  black king   black king   black king  black king   white king   black king 1
Solid white.svg a          b           c            d            e           f            g            h          Solid white.svg

Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. I wonder if this ever worked right. The element generated for the empty light square on a8 is
<img alt=" black king" src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Chess_l45.svg/26px-Chess_l45.svg.png" width="26" height="26">
The blank space at the beginning of the alt text is actually where a description of the square is supposed to go. The template docs say:
It produces alt text. Cells with content read like "b8 black king".
The diagram is assembled by a chain of template calls. The initial call to Template:chess diagram results in eight calls of Template:chess diagram/row, each one making eight calls to Template:chess diagram/square which finally calls Template:chess diagram alt text. The last template expects both the square and the piece to be passed as parameters. As far as I can see Template:Chess diagram/square has never actually passed the square so the comment explaining the alt text does not seem to be correct. I know next to nothing about wikimedia templates, but this should be fixable.
The other question is why all empty squares produce alt text of " black king". This must be because for empty squares the second parameter passed to Template:chess diagram alt text is empty. The docs claim
Empty cells - which are just spaces or "__" - have no alt text (they emit |link= to fit with alt text guidelines.
I don't understand the template #switch statement, but the doc is incorrect as passing empty parameters with {{chess diagram alt text||}} gives "|link=". [Correction: gave " black king|link=", the template is now updated.] (This text gets added into [[File:...|alt=...]] to set the alt text and add the link.) Someone who understands templates should find this even easier to fix than the missing square. The square fix is probably essential too, as the alt text without the square isn't really very useful to screen readers or accessibility technologies. Quale (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I may have fixed the bad alt text for empty squares issue. An old simplification edit to Template:Chess diagram alt text broke handling of empty squares. We should still try to fix up the chess diagrams to include the square in the alt text. Quale (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Note, as well as the alt tags, I noticed a problem with the white knight on light squares icons (the ones 'nll' in their filenames). They're just blank for me. On I think every board I saw. (So a problem with the icon itself?) Fatphil (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

White knights on light squares render OK for me. I don't know what might be going wrong for you. You could try reloading the page, holding down shift when you reload. On some browsers this will reload even cached content which can help if you have a bad image cached. 96.42.47.34 (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Every once in a while some of the pieces don't show up for a while. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I think I've worked out why the images don't load! This is the URL of one of the images that doesn't show up for me:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Chess_nll45.svg/45px-Chess_nll45.svg.png
And the reason it doesn't show up can be found right ^^^^ here.
"/ad/" is matching one of my AdBlock rules. I'm guessing about 1/256th of the images will be blocked by that rule :-( Fatphil (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No diagram works properly at book's project, like Chess variants. Does any one knows why?OTAVIO1981 (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Chessgames player profiles

There is an editor that is removing links to Chessgames player profiles (e.g. WikiProject Chess/Archive 23 player profile and games at Chessgames.com ) saying that they are spam and not reliable. Is this correct? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That is incorrect. --SubSeven (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Then see recent edits to Steve Giddins and Raymond Keene, and look at the comments in the edit history. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
It looks like he was confused and thought that ChessGames was being used as a source, in which case he'd have a point, but it's just an EL. --SubSeven (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the policy. Firstly, the site makes its money from traffic. Links from here are a good way to boost that cash flow. Wikipedia should not be used for such a purpose without merit. As the site requires a java plugin, it falls, very clearly, into the to normally be avoided category. It is also a chat/discussion forum, which again means it should normally be avoided. As it is in WP:BLP in a high number of cases, the site should be considered to be of high quality - it is not of high quality. Anyone can add crap there, and anyone does add crap there. There is no guarantee that the content in this site is accurate. It does not, therefore, offer any significant or beneficial value to the reader. There are other sources available, and these should be prefered.--Lecale42 (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Chessgames.com is linked as EL in hundreds if not thousands of WP chess articles. You changed two articles. 1,998 to go. IMO you're wrong about the site being unqualified by policy as EL. You seem to be the editor who has not read the policy, so you can please stop with the condescension -- it's uncivil. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I did read the policy. As stated above, you can find therin, clear reasons why it should not be considered a suitable external link. I'm quite sure that anyone with a stake in chessgames.com would disagree. --Lecale42 (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Almost any online news site offers blogging commentary by readers. So by your logic those are chat sites and therefore no news sites having them would qualify for WP EL. That is a bogus argument. Saying Chessgames.com is without merit is bogus argument. Asserting WP is being used to increase $/traffic flow to the site is bogus argument. Comparing EL criterial to that of WP BLP is bogus argument. Does WP make guarantee to readers the article contents are accurate? No. So how do you extend that an EL-linked site must make guarantee of accuracy, if WP itself does not? Do you have any non-bogus argument(s) to support your contention? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
WP chess variant articles often EL to www.chessvariants.org, to which anyone can add an article, and also offers chat about variants. Is that an unqualified site too? Can you see how your argument disqualifies nearly all sites from EL? Something is wrong with that argument. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
It's difficult to tell if you're being serious here. An online newspaper may, or may not, display comments on a story. What on earth does that have to do with anything? The comments are not the story. The point about this site is that it is user submitted content. Anything can be submitted. These submission, whether in the forms of games, game comments, or comments, make up the player profile. What is the merit of chessgames.com over published, verifiable, accounts or records, of the player?
In the context of spam, saying that a website uses links to drive traffic to its site is absolutely the point.
I have never read chessvariants.org, so I don't care about it.
Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic Chessgames.com is clearly not a research site. It is certainly on topic. There is no suggestion that it is accurate. --Lecale42 (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
"It is also a chat/discussion forum, which again means it should normally be avoided." As are most major news sites. So burden of relevance is yours; it was your argument. "Links from here are a good way to boost that cash flow. Wikipedia should not be used for such a purpose". WP doesn't use ELs to drive up Chessgames.com traffic or profits, which is what you have been saying. "End of story" (your edit summary). I suppose that means discussion is now closed, since you have decided as much. (Yes, I've just been the jokester, silly me.) If you think Chessgames.com EL are spam, how about getting an Administrator to inform ProjChess of same? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought I was pointing out that they were spam here? Obviously not. So let me point it out again. They are spam. They do not serve as a reliable source of information for the wikipedia user to learn of more reliable information on the subject matter. No more so, than a subscription to another commercial entity, such as Chessbase.

--Lecale42 (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The use of links to Chessgames.com was discussed on these pages a couple of years ago and the consensus was to use it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Given that it fails the definition of a suitable EL on so many points, I find that stupid. To put it in simple terms, why do you want to fund chessgames.com? --Lecale42 (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Referring to WP:ELNO, I think the salient points to this discussion are the following:
  • "1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."
  • Chessgames.com does meet this criterion, as it provides detailed player stats and direct links to games that would not be in a featured article about the subject.
  • "4. Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See external link spamming."
  • Arguably, the presence of the link does "promote" the website (as does the existence of a link to any other website), but this is not its main purpose. Yes, Chessgames.com is a commercial site, but there is nothing in the policy about disallowing links to commercial websites. Sasata (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure what this guy's problem with Chessgames is. They provide fairly reliable historical write-ups. They're certainly good for a general overview of a player, often beyond what Wikipedia has. As noted by others, there is nothing in the rules against commercial websites. However, I would like to debunk the idea that Chessgames.com is unverified user submitted content and anyone can write whatever they want on player profiles. This is simply not true. The actual profiles, write-ups of tournaments, matches, and players is done by a dedicated group of amateur chess historians (no different than Wikichess, really) using primary and strongly supported secondary sources. Changes must be approved by other members of the Chessgames historical chess group. Perhaps Lecale42 is confusing Chessgames profiles with the comments underneath, which, as Ihardlythinkso noted, is no different than any news article published online? ChessPlayerLev (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This stubborn resistance surprises me. Firstly, an external link should not be a source. A proper, reliable source should be referenced. I think we agree that Chessgames.com does not form the basis of a reliable source, as defined by wikipedia. (Don't blame me for that.) As such, I see the only merit to be the games of any chess player, and here, lets cut the website some slack and assume that these games are accurate records and not breaking copyright restrictions with any of the comments. Now, under that assumption, lets skip through the reasons to not choose the site as an external link.

1. 1.Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. MATCH. Chessgames is clearly not a unique resource for a player's games.

4.Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See external link spamming. POSSIBLE MATCH. If I were the owner of that site, i'd love to have wikipedia provide links to it

5.Links to individual web pages[4] that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services. POSSIBLE MATCH. There is a LOT of advertising material displaying on these pages.

8.Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See rich media for more details. MATCH. It absolutely requires a java plugin.

10.Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists. 11.Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) 12.Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked treating 10-12 as a group: POSSIBLE MATCH, you can make reasonable arguments that Chessgames.com fits into all these categories.

Per BLP, as the site will sometimes contain comments slagging off the owner, it also FAILS on that point.

Now I can understand that a lot of you probably like and use that site, however that is not a valid reason to go against wikipedia policy. As outlined above, it clearly matches up with several reasons for not being included as an external link. What should the consequences of that be? --Lecale42 (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Addressing your points:
  • 1. Chessgames clearly is a unique resource for player stats and games. What other website provides this information?
  • 4. "If I were the owner of that site, i'd love to have wikipedia provide links to it" So would most other website owners. What does this have to do with the policy?
  • 5. I do not think the site has an objectionable amount of advertising, and consider one or two ads to be LITTLE advertising. YMMV.
  • 8. I can access the linked pages, read the player stats and bio, and games list just fine with my Java-disabled viewer.
  • 10-12. One can make even more reasonable arguments that Chessgames.com fits into none of these categories. Sasata (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


  • Lecale42, Regarding point #1, you are misreading it. ChessGames DOES provide a unique resource beyond what the article would optimally contain if it were developed fully (the player's games)! Not unique to the web, unique to the article. It is not the only web site in the world to provide a player's games, so possibly you could argue that a different games resource should be linked to, but ChessGames is well established as the best, due to the way the games are indexed, the search capabilities, the statistics, the reliability, quick updates of new games, an active staff that makes corrections, and on and on. This has been discussed before.
  • Point #8 - The game scores are supplied in text and PGN too.
  • Point #10 - There are comments areas on the profiles, which is kind of a forum, but we're not solely linking to a forum. It is more analogous to the comments section on a news article, like on CNN, ABCNews, etc. The comments are incidential to the actual content being linked to. --SubSeven (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The EL does not specify that the 'unique resource' must be located on the internet. Given that, it is abundantly clear that this is not a unique resource. There are other games collections out there. Commercial ones for instance. Therefore, how on earth can you honestly and seriously argue that this is a unique resource? In fact, you don't. The argument is basically that somebody made a chessgames template, and you want to keep using it.

When I visit the source I am met with a message "java plug-in" out of date. Which suggests to me that it uses by default a java plug in. I see there is a text link. Fair enough, it can escape on that point.

I object to visiting websites that instantly try to sell me something. 2 adverts is objectionable to me. The content you are externally linking to includes 3 sections (as I understand it) [1] A profile, which is basically useless in most instances as it is blank. [2] A collection of games, which may or may not be accurate, and is certainly not unique. [3] A forum, which contains potentially offensive comments, directly against WP:BLP. The site is marketed as a community. We have above, claims that it effectively operates as a wiki/fansite, ( a collective engaging in amateur, possibly original, research.) If you want to argue why "More than just a database, we're also a community." isn't an admission of social networking, I'll listen patiently. Or "Chessgames.com is the perfect place to advertise your chess tournaments, products, and services." doesn't indicate that is commercial and highly desiring a huge traffic and search engine boost from a wikipedia project linking every player to the site, i'll listen.--Lecale42 (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If the main thrust of your argument for keeping the links doesn't exist, perhaps you should concede defeat?--Lecale42 (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure, you win. Sasata (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll remove the link where appropriate in that case.--Lecale42 (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Sasata responded "you win" the same reason I responded "silly me" -- you do not seem to be open to real discussion. (For example, User:SubSeven carefully explained to you how it is that you were misreading policy re "unique", yet, you still have clung to your first mistaken interpretation. How does that happen?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
A careful explanation? I think I read the policy correctly, probably by virtue of knowing what unique means. Chessgames.com is not unique. There are other chess databases out there. If you're both going to act like sarcastic children, then I'd prefer it if you just left the debate. I'm happy to discuss the issue with anyone who actually read the policy--Lecale42 (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
You are mistaken. Go read the thread again. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
He admitted it was not unique on the web, and I have pointed out that it is not unique off the web. So that pretty much covers it in terms of not being a unique resource.--Lecale42 (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
What other non-commercial game collections can we link to instead? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Lecale42 seems to be throwing every absurd argument he can think of at Chessgames, no matter how incorrect and irrelevant, in the hopes that one sticks. So far, we've heard

  • "It has ads on the site!". So does the New York Times online and countless other well-respected secondary sources.
  • "It has comments on the site!". So does the New York Times online and countless other well-respected secondary sources.
  • "It has forums on the site!". So does the...you get the idea!
  • "Anyone can add anything they want to the site!" Patently untrue. The actual profiles, write-ups of tournaments, matches, and players is done by a dedicated group of amateur chess historians (no different than WikiChess, really) using primary and strongly supported secondary sources. Changes must be approved by other members of the Chessgames historical chess group.
  • "The games are not unique!" So what? Rather than scrounging around for player biographies that have been out of print for DECADES, old newspaper articles, or tournament books that only a small handful of people in the world possess, why not use the most readily available source, which anyone with a functioning Internet can access? In fact, Chessgames is actually better than those other sources in that regard, because if there is a discrepancy, they can make an informed decision on which source is more accurate.

Assuming good faith, the problem here is the idea that non-Internet secondary sources for chess history are readily available and accurate. Neither is true. I have found ten times as many errors in a published book called "American Chess Masters from Morphy to Fischer" than I have in the entire Chessgames site put together. Frequently, when discrepancies arose in terms of dates and game scores, guess who was actually correct? Chessgames. If you want some specific examples, I am more than happy to provide them. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Chessgames doesn't provide any biographical information at all on Steve Giddins. You are linking to a forum, and to a database which contains games which can be found elsewhere on the web. Sorry if that's too sensible for you Bubba. If the games are not unique, it doesn't fit with wikipedia policy. That's so what. Sorry to try to stay on topic with wikipedia policy. Where is the proof on the accuracy of biographical detail on chessgames.com? I don't see it anywhere in the wikipedia article? Original research on your part?--Lecale42 (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask again: where is a free website with the chess games? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
"Chessgames doesn't provide any biographical information at all on Steve Giddins." Oh really? Then how would you classify this type info then?:
STEPHEN GIDDINS
(born Jan-29-1961) United Kingdom
Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no "proof on the accuracy of biographical detail" in anything, least of all on historical chess subjects. There is no "proof" that any given book, magazine, or newspaper will be accurate, and frequently, they're not. Chessgames is not only one of the most readily available sources for all users, but also more accurate than the majority of non-Internet sources that I have come across. Yes, it contains mistakes. So do most articles and books written by GMs, usually at a more common and egregious rate. While I wasn't around for the discussion, the other members of WikiChess apparently came to a similar conclusion about the site's usefulness. So far, your only objections have either been irrelevant stuff ("they have comments and ads"), just plain wrong ("anyone can add anything they want"), or a criticism that applies to any source. ("there's no proof that everything is completely accurate") ChessPlayerLev (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
CPL, you seem to be making a case that Chessgames.com is a best source available. But keep in mind the scope of discussion here is Chessgames.com appropriateness for ELs (not article source), as well as that some other members don't agree with contention Chessgames.com should be relied on as source for complete game records (specifically, User:Bash Brannigan and User:Quale in this discussion). Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Bubba, if you are serious, try searching in google. https://www.google.fr/search?q=online+chess+database&aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=11&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Somebody's date of birth being mentioned (but not to the standards of wikipedia verifiablity) on a webpage do not qualify it as an external link. Granted, you can tenuously call that biographical detail/info, but it's pretty damn slim by anyone's measure. It barely advances on the information already linked to from the FIDE player card. As for "proof", all we are looking at here is wikipedia's own standards, which the site doesn't meet. I didn't write those standards, so don't but bug me if you don't like them. Comments and ads are there (Every page has 4 adverts by the way. 2 placed via cookie info, 1 for the host website, 1 for premium membership of the site.), you should not link to anything that may contain inappropriate material cf Biography policy. If that includes 99% of webpages out there, don't blame me, blame wikipedia policy. --Lecale42 (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you specify which of them you find acceptable? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
If you can clarify why that would be useful, I could do so. The point I was making was that it is clearly not a unique source. Which means that it then is meeting a criteria to not use it as an external link. I don't really want to repeat that again. --Lecale42 (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I notice you continue to ignore my replies (and those of most other editor) while continuing repeat the same irrelevant claims. That being said, WHAT Wikipedia policy is being violated here? You keep bemoaning adverts and comments, something that the freaking New York Times has. Are you informing us that the New York Times doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, too? Good luck with that. The users decided to approve Chessgames for two main reasons;
  • It's the most easily and widely accessible source for game scores.
  • It's pretty accurate, far moreso than most published books, newspaper, and magazines, in fact.
By the way, the second point is the most important, and one you continue to ignore. Sources are considered on a case-by-case, and if they are considered accurate and fit for purpose by editors, they are used. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you feel I've ignored your replies. I have pointed out which parts of the wikipedia policy were being ignored. When you link to external content, you link to all of it. You don't have some qualifier in the link that says, excuse me, but would you mind not reading parts [a] [b] & [c]. That is pretty obvious, and although it may be annoying, it doesn't change the fact that it is the case. It is more normal to reference a newspaper article, which is usually a hardcopy. So I don't see why you throw that strawman argument in there. Chessgames.com may well be accurate, like wikipedia. However, you cannot use wikipedia as a source, for much the same reasons as you cannot use Chessgames.com as a source. That again may strike you as silly, but that's wikipedia's own policy. I'm sorry if it is annoying to keep bringing up what wikipedia policy actually is, rather than what you would like it to be, but it is quite relevant to the discussion here. Since other sources of games exist for chess players, and those sources may be more accurate, I don't see why it should be the case that we blanket link. For the sake of interest, can you clarify for me whether or not you have a Chessgames.com account yourself? --Lecale42 (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't have a Chessgames account, although that's quite irrelevant to the discussion. Also, you have not pointed out any single Wikipedia policy that Chessgames violates. I don't know whether you're being willfully ignorant, but online newspaper articles have comments and adverts on them too, so your constant bleating that this violates "Wikipedia policy" is pure nonsense. Again, by your interpretation, both the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal do not "follow wikipedia's (sic) own policy". Out of curiosity, have you started topics calling for Wikipedia to stop using the NYT and WSJ? ChessPlayerLev (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I can't say that I've read the entirety of Wikipedia, noted down, and then started removing all the bad bits, no. On the other hand, I have been around long enough to realise that you can reference an article appearing in an online, or offline newspaper, without, at the same time, linking that to other material present on the page(s). That's of course quite distinct from linking to an URL, without even starting to give guidance on which part of the URL you should be reading. As I said, it is a straw man argument, and I don't really see why you are making it here? Perhaps it is because you are the type of person who thinks that writing (sic) will make themselves look intelligent? Systematic bias is, of course, relevant to the discussion.--Lecale42 (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Try to actually keep the discussion to the matter at hand, instead of diverting the discussion elsewhere. I suggest you spend some more time reading Wikipedia and looking at entries; linking to online versions of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal is an exceedingly common and acceptable practice, and both have those dreaded comments and ads you keep railing about. My argument was not a "strawman", but rather what's known as a "counterexample" and "established practice"; if you don't know what a strawman actually is, I suggest reading up on that, too. The only conclusions I can draw is that you're very unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and/or have a strange bias/hatred towards Chessgames.com. I will ask you the same question Bubba73 did and which you keep ignoring; why is that? Are you a rival website owner? And what is your wonderful alternative to Chessgames.com that has a similar or better level of accuracy, and is as easily accessible and verifiable? We are all on pins and needles, dying to find out. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you understand the difference between a reference and an external link? Do you understand that it is not Wikipedia's function to point readers to one source of information by default, just because that source may sometimes be accurate on similar subjects. Abuse is all well and good, but it doesn't divert me from bringing you back to the matter in hand.--Lecale42 (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I remember adding links to chessgames.com several years ago since it was a convenient link to complete game scores that could be linked to directly. In general it is a reliable source for the game scores of individual games, information that would probably be of interest to a reader, but of limited value in a Wikipedia article. The player profiles generally provide a list of games (but don't be deceived into thinking that the game list is a comprehensive summary of a player's games, trying to use the list to generate statistics over a player' performance is not a good idea), but very little reliable biographical information. What biographical information is there is typically from the messageboard, so I wouldn't link to those profiles in general. I cannot quite see that WP:ELNO really prohibits the though, since a list of a player's games may be of interest to readers, so a link there isn't mere linkspam. Note that there have come other databases on the internet (I personally use 365chess.com for instance) that could also be used for this purpose, and many of them have a larger game database as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The pros and cons of 365chess versus chessgames were discussed a couple of years ago too, and the consensus was to use chessgames. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, I missed that discussion. (I see a made a brief note in another discussion about distinguising a source's notability from a source's reliability.) I didn't make a clear opinion in my post above, but to avoid giving the appearance of Wikipedia endorsing a particular website, regardless of whether it is commercial or non-profit, I believe that we should avoid systematically making a non-citation external link to any website over a series of articles unless the people or organization behind the website has some official function related to the subject. The exception allows the systematic linking of a player's profile at the FIDE page, since FIDE has the official function of providing a person's rating, and is the organization that organizes the game. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
As someone who uses both 365chess and Chessgames (both are good sites), I agree that the latter is generally more accurate. There are several high-profile game scores that I know 365chess botched, but which Chessgames has recorded accurately. Also, while 365chess has a larger database, Chessgames is at least as complete (possibly moreso) when it comes to games from famous masters. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Ponziani Opening

Would someone look at recent edits to Ponziani Opening? The editor says that he wrote a book on the Ponziani, but his edits call things "hogwash", he puts things in wrong places, and some edits seem POV, and no references. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 13:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the book. I looked it up on Amazon and there are two reviews, one 4 stars and one 5 stars out of 5. I checked several general opening books and none of them say that the Ponziani is good. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Seems that the editor is the author of a book but doesn't understand Wikipedia enough to add sources to the material. The Ponziani is quite playable but like the Scotch it stands in the shadows of the Ruy Lopez. It also has two extremes of play, a wild game after 3. c3 d5 and a passive game after 3. c3 Nf6. As the selection of the wild or passive game is of Blacks choosing that tends to put most White players off this opening at the top level. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 01:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
That's right. I reverted his edits twice, but I put a welcome on his talk page pointing to the policies. We would like to have him editing. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
As someone whose main weapon as White is the Scotch, I am deeply offended by the Pozniani being compared to it. :) I mean, at least the Scotch still sees occasional use at the highest elite-caliber GM tournaments (usually only the Mieses variation or as a surprise weapon, but still, Radjabov played it against Carlsen at the Tal Memorial), and was used by no less a player than Garry Kasparov to beat opponent like Karpov and Topalov. Certainly, at the highest levels, the Ruy is still preferable over the Scotch, even taking into account the Berlin. (One reason why many players today have switched to 1. d4) But the Ponziani? Even on a weak master level (~2200), it's not a particularly effective opening. Black can achieve equality by a very simple set of moves, and any attempt by White to deviate results in them getting the worse position. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The Scotch is better in my view, and far more common but we have to be balanced here the Ponziani is no patzer opening, Alexey Dreev had no problem beating Gata Kamsky with it. That said it is an impractical opening from beginner to expert because Black dictates the type of play. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

List of chess books

The "List of chess books" pages (List of chess books (A–F), List of chess books (G–L), List of chess books (M–S), List of chess books (T–Z)) are being discussed at WT:NOT#Does this run afoul of WP:NOTDIR?. The concern is that they aren't appropriate for a Wikipedia article. I've always thought this list does not belong in article namespace, although I've been too lazy to actually try to do anything about it. If they are thought to be important then I would recommend putting them in the project namespace. (I don't actually think the list is important or useful either. There are over 10,000 chess books written in English, and I don't see any reason that the list shouldn't include chess books in other languages. The list is too indiscriminate.) Quale (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of this list, either. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. It started as a list of only those books used in article references if I recall, but now it has lost even that questionable raison d'etre. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

unforced error?

What sense does it make to call something an "unforced error" in chess? Tennis has forced errors and unforced errors, but chess?. Pal Benko uses the term in his column in the October 2012 Chess Life (p. 44, first paragraph) and it was used in an article on the Susan Polgar blog a week or so ago. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but my guess is that they mean that the player making the mistake wasn't under any particularly strong threat. If your position is under pressure and you have to counter a serious threat, it's easier to understand making an error. This might be considered a "forced error", even if an accurate defense was available to save or win the game. Quale (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
That would be my weak understanding as well, meaningful or not. Or to be more precise: if your opponent has a strong threat, then you make a move designed to parry this threat, but this turns out to allow another threat, that is one type of error. But if your opponent did not have any particular strong threat, an error would be an "unforced error". SyG (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone please explain to me

I can't figure out where and how to propose an article to be promoted in class. Can someone please explain how it works to me? --Rigas • Talk • Deeds • 08:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

If it is up to B, C, or Start, you can do that yourself by editing it on the talk page. GA or FA have to go through a lengthy process. For A, I think you need to get the consensus of others, say at this project. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
For B-class as well, I would suggest to ask for the review of another experienced editor. SyG (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Anastasia Avramidou

Does this player meets our notability standards? Sasata (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw that red link and just had to fix it. I've worked hard for that article and I would be very disappointed to see it deleted. I have to state, since the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information, why is there a reason to delete an article like this? Maybe un-notable, but it doesn't cause any harm by existing, and it may prove useful to some people. --Rigas • Talk • Deeds • 19:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The harm is that if allowed to exist in contravention of our notability policy for chessplayers, then that policy becomes meaningless, and it opens the floodgates for any article about non-notable chessplayers to exist. Sasata (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Isn't having as much information as possible good? --Rigas • Talk • Deeds • 20:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
No. See WP:N. Sasata (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
In this case, I'll fight to prove my claim that the article is notable enough. --Rigas • Talk • Deeds • 20:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
"Does this player meets our notability standards?", if 'our' means the WikiProject, then it does not matter, see the policy WP:OWN and especially the policy WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. That aside, subjects are usually notable if they meets WP:GNG. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 00:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I've listed the article at AfD. Sasata (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Two bishops can't always checkmate?

Batsford Chess Endings by Speelman, et. al. says that two bishops versus a lone king win in 99.97% of the positions (see pawnless chess endings). If the starting position is a legal position with White to move, and the bishops on opposite colors, what is a position where the bishops can't force checkmate? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Why would it be White to move? Could it be situations where White has just taken Black's final piece or pawn and Black can return the exchange? Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 16:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
abcdefgh
8
b3 white bishop
c3 white king
a1 white bishop
b1 black king
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
White to move
How about the position to the right. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 16:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
GOOD ONE!! Thumbs up icon (And since the Bb3 can be anywhere c4–g8, I bet that's how they come up with 0.03%.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I count 6(six bishop squares-b3,c4,d5,e6,f7 & g8)*2(two White king positions-c3&d2)*2(reflected diagonally-Black King on a2)*4(for each corner) positions, 96 in total with the bishop in the corner and the Black King next to it. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, very good! Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
In addition to K on c3 & d2, it can also be on d1! (Amazing.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Julie Terry Lefèvre-Han

Julie Terry Lefèvre-Han - yet another hoax. MrsHudson (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Alekhine's Defence

In Alekhine's Defence, what is the significance of telling about the longest and shortest games with those variations? Bubba73 You talkin' to me?

Good faith adds but irrelevant & unencyclopedic. This add includes a first-person self reference! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Gender-generic "he" in chess articles

Look at the discussions at Talk:Antichess and Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language and see if there's any need for a banner saying that gender-generic "he" is acceptable in chess articles. Georgia guy (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I was involved in working on an article to get to GA status. A reviewer objected to using "he", etc. I think "they" was objected to because it was plural, when the sentence called for singular. I changed it to "he or she", which I despise, and that met approval. I think the banner may be the best solution. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Now, is chess special in any way that means that chess articles are allowed to use "he" gender-generically?? Anything besides chess where a similar rule applies?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree completely with Ihardlythinkso on this particular matter. Is a lone instance of "he" worth making the main rule of suicide chess poorly-written and confusing? No, I believe it is not. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:GNL says to use gender-neutral language if possible, but the people involved in this discussion say that because chess literature (even today where many people prefer gender-neutral language) still uses gender-generic he, Wikipedia should do so in chess articles. Georgia guy (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is also correct. The sides are usually referred to as simply "White" and "Black", and in the few instances where personal pronouns are necessary, "he", "his", etc. are used.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure that chess players can be of either gender. How is chess special to the subject of gender-neutral language and is there anything more general than chess that this also includes?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
You asked me a question, and I gave you an answer. Chess books have always used such personal pronouns. The people that told you chess literature uses gender-generic "he" were completely correct. "How" or "why" is a separate, irrelevant discussion. You might as well ask "why" Wikipedia isn't named Rikipedia instead, or "why" Times New Roman font is used in a text instead of Ariel, etc. There is a standard nomenclature/set of conventions, and this is one of them. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
But why does chess literature use gender-generic "he"?? The reason is simply because the authors don't bother to use gender-neutral language. Does WP:GNL say anything special about chess that means that Wikipedia should use gender-generic "he" in chess articles?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
You just ignored everything that I wrote in my last reply. Here is the same explanation to the same question, with the relevant parts bolded, since you believe that lends it additional gravitas; Chess books have always used such personal pronouns. The people that told you chess literature uses gender-generic "he" were completely correct. "How" or "why" is a separate, irrelevant discussion. You might as well ask "why" Wikipedia isn't named Rikipedia instead, or "why" Times New Roman font is used in a text instead of Ariel, etc. There is a standard nomenclature/set of conventions, and this is one of them. By the way, "if I ask a question and get an answer I dislike, I will just keep asking the question again and again!" is not a very convincing approach. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is simply a combination of wiki(wiki) and (encyclo)pedia. As for Times New Roman, it's just considered by many to be the normal approach. I was asking the question "Why does chess literature use gender-generic he??" This question is not the same as "Why should Wikipedia articles about chess use gender-generic he??" Do you understand the difference between the 2 questions?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
"As for Times New Roman, it's just considered by many to be the normal approach." Ah! You have now answered your own question about chess literature conventions! Also, WikiChess adopting the same approach as the rest of the chess world is generally considered a good idea, so your "difference" between the two questions is a redundant one. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
And do you think my answer is right?? Once again, it's because the authors of chess literature don't bother to use gender-neutral language. But we're not the same people as them. BTW here's something I didn't initially think about, which appears to be true as I have learned more about User:Ihardlythinkso. He must be an uncivil Wikipedian; specifically one who complains about edits simply because he doesn't like them. Can you read WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Considering that I have had several disputes with Ihardlythinkso that went to the ANI, I'm well aware of who he is. This doesn't change the fact that on this topic, he is completely and irrevocably correct. It's not just "authors of chess literature" who use these personal pronouns, it's "the entire chess world". The idea that Wikipedia should ignore standard convention and "do their own thing" would be like WikiMath articles using a tilde in place of the standard plus sign in arithmetic. It's ridiculous, confusing, and unnecessary. By the way, notice the subtle shift in your questions. First, you asked whether there was a standard of using masculine personal pronouns in the chess literature. When you were informed that yes, there was, you started endlessly asking how and why this was so, two utterly irrelevant questions when talking about notation or naming conventions. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Now, why is the chess world so special?? Chess is just a subject a sentence in the English language can be about, and it's one of many such subjects. Georgia guy (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Why is the math world so special that they have their own notation and naming conventions? Why is the chemistry world so special? Why is the poker world? ChessPlayerLev (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
They're just entitled to having such notations. + as a plus sign, Na for sodium, and straight for a power hand with 5 cards of consecutive rank (5-6-7-8-9 of any suit) are all examples of statements that are examples of your questions' statements. R as a notation for rook is an example of such a statement with chess. He as a gender-generic pronoun is not; it is an example of gender-specific language. Georgia guy (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
And another standard of the chess world is to refer to the sides as "White" and "Black" instead of "the player controlling the White/Black pieces". And yet another is that the Queen is referred to as a "she", while the King is a "he". Another standard, the one you keep having problems with, is referring to players as "he" when their actual genders/identities are not known.
As I wrote on my Talk Page, making the main rule of suicide chess necessarily more confusing and convoluted is a bad idea already, even if it didn't involve using unusual nomenclature. No one involved in chess really cares or gives a second thought to the personal pronoun used; it's just the standard. If you would like to change this, you need to convince chess publishers and the chess world at large to change their ways, not me. WikiChess, like WikiMath or anything else, will be a reflection of the standards used by the world at large in discussing the subject.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I really want to know the thoughts of some Wikipedian other than Georgia guy, ChessPlayerLev, and Ihardlythinkso who has read WP:GNL carefully to reveal their thoughts on this discussion. Georgia guy (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
My opinion: you are making too big of a deal out of this. All alternatives I can think of are too wordy, awkward, or sound stilted. And as far as king and queen being called he and she (resp.), I think there are few cases (if any) of that in these Wikipedia articles. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Georgia guy, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me like you’re objecting to the standard use of “he” in chess because you believe that chess writers/players don’t care about sex neutrality and equality, or possibly actively work against it. This is pure speculation, and it’s entirely non-productive and not germane to this discussion. Until and unless there’s a news report on the chess world systematically oppressing female players, don’t try and ascribe motives to it. (Apologies if this comes off as flippant or rude. I’m not trying to be; I’m just sleepy.) —Frungi (talk) 06:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language. Have you read it?? Do you think it should be changed slightly?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
It says that GNL does not apply to:
  1. Direct quotations
  2. Titles of works
  3. Situations where all referents are of one gender

Does it say that it doesn't apply to chess anywhere?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


Sorry, not going to read everything that's been posted here since Georgia Guy seems to employ methods of communication that are designed to produce huge walls of text without accomplishing anything, but: isn't it obvious that this should just be handled on a case-by-case basis? If a given sentence or article can easily be made gender-neutral without having an important effect on clarity, let any editor who wants to, do that. If an edit to gender-neutrality results in a really unreadable sentence, then engage in good-faith attempts to find a compromise. At antichess one user got so invested in fighting gender-neutral changes that s/he stopped bothering to actually consider whether or not they were actually harmful. A single instance of "his or her" or "she or he" in a sentence is totally innocuous; in a long section in which White and Black appear with gendered pronouns repeatedly, one can be called "he" and the other "she" with no loss of clarity or quality of writing; and some sentences can be easily and happily reworded in the passive voice (which already seems to be common on the small number of chess articles I've looked at, including Antichess). I don't see why anyone in this project should waste time making a banner about this, nor why anyone should feel obligated to switch gendered to neutral language if they don't want to, nor why anyone should treat this as anything other than a typical minor issue to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

(By the way, I professionally am a mathematician -- given the relative gender-imbalance in my field, I've tried to speak and write gender-neutrally when in the mathematical context. Typical readers really don't notice it at all, and a small number of people appreciate it. It's certainly not a burden on clear communication, but nor is it worth a lot of pointless bickering.) -JBL (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Georgia guy, we've already talked about this. Besides the fact that WP:GNL is not a policy or guideline, policies reflect general consensus and cannot and should not cover every exception. —Frungi (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Well then why do we have such a page if it's not a policy?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed the "not a policy" template. Any official meaning of it?? I still believe, however, the following statement: If Ihardlythinkso hadn't reverted my edit to Antichess this whole discussion wouldn't have happened. Georgia guy (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
See WP:ESSAYS. And what's your point? Consensus seems to be his revert was justified, even besides the awkward wording. —Frungi (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I got to that page, and it said:
Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors (such as a WikiProject) for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace. See Category:Wikipedia essays and Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays.
Does this mean that only some Wikipedians believe considering gender-neutral language is important, and that ChessPlayerLev just happens not to be one of them?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I find the lecture from JBL particularly disingenuous, coming from someone who, while a Talk page discussion was in process, went ahead without consensus and reverted to his own preferred phrasing from the original article text. Also, it's a bit pretentious to suggest the way he writes his mathematics articles, should be taken as a model by all editors in how WP articles should be written. (Gosh, if I have my own view about good writing that differs, I guess according to JBL I am just "wrong" and he is so much wiser.) What JBL proposed (go read it) is that if someone introduces a text change that is abysmal, --because it is gender neutral-related--, we must "find a compromise" with said editor (even though it adds no benefit, and might result in poorer expression, but, "that's okay"). IMO, which is discounted, good writing trumps politically-correct writing, or a gender-neutral extremism/fanaticism. And I don't see any reason one must work to find "compromise" for subpar expressions, just because an extremist POV-pusher re gender neutral fanaticism comes wandering along, ... someone without a clue or any respect regarding chess articles or how they might be written differently from another English language article. There was no benefit to change "A player wins by losing all his pieces" at Antichess, only a chance to turn that sentence into something subpar, to please the gender-neutral POV crowd, who don't give a damn about chess or chess articles. Go for it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Georgia guy: Do you believe that I, or anyone, can speak for the entirety of Wikipedia editors? Read the MOS section that GNL links to. That's as close to written law as you'll find on the subject. And please, stop veiling accusations as questions. Also, I think you might benefit from giving WP:LAWYER a read.
Ihardlythinkso: Respectfully, you're coming across as an extremist in the other direction. I don't think that getting as worked up as you are (or as you seem to be) helps your argument. —Frungi (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Ihardlythinkso, you need to calm down and WP:AGF.The sentence in question has been edited in about 3 or 4 different ways; some of them were extremely awkward, and the present version isn't. GeorgiaGuy obviously has some competency issues (just as you have some civility issues), but that doesn't have anything to do with the actual best way to word the sentence in question. Edit: I concur fully with Frungi's post. --JBL (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The "present version" was a revert by you, without consensus, while there was a discussion at article Talk. That's not nice protocol, from how I understand WP policy. So you are in no position to lecture or instruct me, about protocol or civility. You love to put words into my mouth, and I find that particularly reprehensible. (Your snide, invisible remark.) Go take a hike. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Just pissed at being mischaracterized. If I were an extremist in the other direction, then I'd be campaigning undoing gender-neutral changes generally. I'm not into that, and I've even given up on the Antichess article. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of consensus, there is a very clear one here. The 3 regular members of WikiChess (myself, Bubba73, Ihardlythinkso) all think the personal pronoun "he" is fine, 1 other member believes it's okay (Frungi), 1 member seems a bit ambivalent either way (JBL), and 1 with no interest in chess despises it (Georgia Guy). With the issue having been discussed at considerable length in several places, and giving it an extra day's grace period, I went ahead and changed it back to just "he". I am certainly willing to discuss it with JBL (Georgia Guy, as others have mentioned, is acting like a zealot who is trying to find any way to implement his agenda, even when told that it clashes with standard chess language), but if overall consensus is the main issue here, we have one already. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for making that change back to the original text, which (in danger of repeating ad nauseam) I think is simplest & best. And I think the 2005 discussion (below link) is intelligent and consistent with your summary of consensus here. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Back to the main point: Should Wikipedia use the generic “he” in chess articles, or should we strive to ignore the sexes of the players? Or has this been discussed in the past and a consensus reached? —Frungi (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I found this 2005 discussion. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I doubt anyone bothered enough to even bring it up before we got Georgia Guy (no interest in chess whatsoever) here. Anyways, going for gender-neutral language in general is fine, and something I strive to do, but in this particular case, it's much clearer to explain the particular rule with "he". And yes, in chess literature, "he" is the standard usage, not "he or she". The latter, in this particular instance, is especially clumsy, and also obscures the main rule of suicide chess that it is trying to describe. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I am not in fact ambivalent: I think the gender-neutral version is (from the perspective of quality of writing) indistinguishable and I find the repeated assertions to the contrary very strange (a vast majority of readers will not bat an eyelash at the "his or her" formulation), and given the choice between two equally clear wordings I prefer the one that is not unnecessarily exclusive. I find the idea that the chess literature speaks definitively on pronouns rather strange: perhaps "he" is common, but if so this is probably a feature of the fact that "he" is more common than gender neutral language across the board. In fact it seems to me that chess articles already are constructed in a way to avoid pronouns for players and pieces generally, so I don't think making an official decision to go entirely gender-neutral would entail very much work; but I really don't see why anyone should bother to make an official decision one way or the other on what is obviously most naturally treated as a minor case-by-case issue of wording. I think this is my last word on this subject. --JBL (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The language in WP chess articles must reflect the literature, and sometimes use of "he" is consistent with that. Your statement implying "he" in Antichess article is exlusive of females, evidences to me that you do not understand how the word is used in chess literature, because there, it is not exclusive. (You seem to be hungup on a literal interpretation of the word, which doesn't fit with chess literature context/how the word is used.) Your protesting is all from your own POV, which is clear at this point isn't consistent with either chess literature, nor how WP articles should be written, so, what the heck is your beef based on then? (You and Georgia each reverted me and also accused me of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, but clearly, the shoe is, and has been, on the other foot.) I don't see any onus or impetus to "make an official decision to go entirely gender-neutral" anywhere within WP except from you and Georgia guy, and you've both run into the facts of the culture of chess literature, and how WP articles are written consistent with the literature, and ... you're not happy with that situation. (This hasn't amounted to a POV agenda and push?!) Your "is most naturally treated as a minor case-by-case issue of wording" isn't "natural" at all ... for example Antichess was changed by Georgia guy to something awkward, and when I reverted it, he started quite a fuss on the article Talk, and ended up making ad hominem personal attacks as well. So where does the "natural/minor" part come in, when the edit change is instituted by that kind of fervent POV insistence and extremism? And how does your argument that "compromise" must be made in those situations make any reasonable sense? And to top it all off, both you and Georgia guy violated WP:BRD in order to force your views.) Unless you have further points to make, this is my last word on this subject, also. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
You have some serious issues with civility, AGF, battleground mentality, and personal attacks. More than 3/4 of your comment is an attack-rant not related to the ongoing discussion. I suggest that you learn to exercise some self-control -- your current style is likely to end with some long blocks sooner or later. --JBL (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
You wrongly accused me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and violated WP:BRD with your reverts while a discussion was in process and no consensus, never apologized for these things, bury an offensive invisible comment (which you redacted, without apology), can't seem to accept being on losing side of consensus in your summary remarks without complaining (about what?) ... and you think that puts you in good position to lecture me re CIV?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
JBL, you're clearly not very familiar with either chess literature or chess usage. That's fine, but it causes you to make a number of inaccurate statements on this subject. "He" has always been the standard usage in any type of chess writing, whether we're talking about the 1890s or 2012 (I remember GM Serper even putting a disclaimer at the top of one of his recent Chess.com articles to explain this to newer readers). The statement that a reader will be fine with "his or her" may well be true for yourself, but is incorrect for chess fans. Additionally, the sentence in question sounds clumsy and is less clear in describing the main winning condition of Suicide Chess, which hurts the article overall. Meanwhile, what is the benefit to changing it to "his or her"? A compliance to a general Wikipedia rule that is already being followed in that article and others, but has a number of individual exceptions based on the history and usage of the subject topic? ChessPlayerLev (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
IMO that is a really fair summary (and even proof). But from what I've seen, I don't think it is possible, to get JBL agreement here. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Could you give a link to that Chess.com article? I can’t find it, and that disclaimer sounds very relevant. As to the disagreement, I can see both sides, but since no one (not even JBL) really seems to be strongly arguing the other side, I’m just going to play devil’s advocate here: Wikipedia is not chess literature; it’s an encyclopedia, and it should be written as such. It’s not for chess fans, or fans of any given subject; it’s for the general audience of encyclopedia readers. Why should it be beholden to anyone else’s writing style? It has its own style guide. —Frungi (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
A fair Q. My answer would be, I don't think it falls under "writing style", I think it falls more under lexicon (which, in the case of "his", is intersecting and being confused as not lexicon). And the MoS does talk about that: MOS:JARGON. This might be a cleaner example ... Another common element of chess language that confused more than one casual reader came up at Judit Polgár (second lead sentence, the word "strongest"). I created the wlink'd Glossary of chess def for the word "strength", because it was confusing general readers, two of them complained at the article Talk (User:Threeafterthree, and User:Applespeachespumpkinpie), here. (Do a search on the word "muscles".) Both general readers wanted a substitute word to be used instead ("highest ranked", "decorated", etc.). That didn't fly (it wouldn't even occur to anyone involved in chess to question what "strongest" means in that context), so that is why I created the glossary term & link, to help the matter, in lieu of thinking about a more massive solution idea, which no doubt would not be good, beneficial, workable, or desirable. Let me know what you think of this; I think it evinces the same sort of problem dynamic we're talking about here, but is cleaner to deal with. (I didn't get any feedback on the glossary link to-date. I'm not suggesting we wlink "his", that would be bad, my point is that it is the same type of issue though, and falls under lexicon. And so I can understand the impetus behind Bubba suggesting an informative box, but, I haven't thought about that idea at this point, so have no opinion on it, offhand something like that seems overkill, but who knows?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
If the pronoun issue is indeed a matter of lexicon, it should probably be explained somewhere (though certainly not in every article). I don’t currently see anything about it in Chess, nor here in WP Chess. —Frungi (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
IMO the dispute that has arisen here is because it falls under lexicon, but because it is a common word in the dictionary, it was confused as not doing so. (Just like the word "strongest/strength".) As a result, a reader can become confused. But in the case here, the participants weren't readers who were simply perplexed, because there are trimmings of political issues associated with "gender-neutrality" that aren't associated in the case of "strongest/strength". The fact is context around "his" doesn't elicit confusion or perplexity, whereas it did around "strongest/strength". So a definition, IMO, was helpful on the latter. But in the case of "his", though it is equally in the boat of lexicon, it strikes differently (as explained), so I think this means if something would be done toward helping the situation, it wouldn't be the same kind of thing (I did) for "strongest/strength".
I don't honestly know if something should be done, because the situations draw out different reactions, as explained. And because "his" draws no context confusion, only objections, for me, I don't guess the ProjChess members at large are gonna want to do anything, since there's no critical mass of problem enough for the larger body of readers, who, are simply readers, not obectors. So I don't think, besides those kind ProjChess members heard from already to help the immediate situation at Antichess, there will be others concerned enough to even weigh in (especially too since the issue was already discussed in 2005). (This is all MO.; I don't speak for ProjChess of course.)
Another thing too, the thing I did for the issue over "strongest", creating a Glossary of chess entry for "stength" in context of chess, was probably a flawed decision on my part. (Because, the glossary should be for terms specific to chess, like "zugzwang", and so on. The term "strongest/strength", isn't a term like that, and can apply to other games like Go, Reversi, draughts, and so on, just like the term "he" can mean "he or she", probably, in any sport or game.) So what I did creating the glossary entry, was probably invalid, but IMO it can help where it's needed, like at Judit Polgár, where confusion or perplexity surfaced. (So, that's another reason not to add "his" to the glossary, even though part of the lexicon, since it isn't specific to chess. [If someone deleted "strength" from the glossary tomorrow on the basis that it doesn't belong, I could have no objection. Only that it can put a bandaid on perplexity in some articles, maybe.]) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on the main point; that's why I didn't suggest the glossary. But I do feel that it ought to be explained somewhere, like in the Chess article or here on the WIkiProject—if only to dissuade objectors and avoid future misguided debates. Of course, this is merely my opinion. —Frungi (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that goal is desirable, if something were implemented it'd have to be very unobtrusive, but this editor doesn't know what or if or where or how! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess/Archive_23&oldid=845932460"