Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Shogi
Welcome
[edit]I am looking for people interested in helping to create and edit Wikipages related to Shogi. I feel the best way to gather people together who are interested in doing this is to establish a Wikiproject Shogi. Of course, all persons interested are more than welcome to participate, but, since most of the primary source materials related to Shogi tend to be in Japanese, assistance from people with a fairly good understanding of Japanese (especially the ability to read articles, web pages, etc. in Japanese) would be most appreciated. Moreover, experienced Wiki editor or experienced Shogi players would also be most welcomed. There's lots of Japanese Wikipages that could simply be translated in to English to keep this group busy for quite awhile, but Shogi is not a game that is entirely exclusive to Japan so there's lots of potential pages about other aspects of Shogi that could be written as well. Thanks --- Marchjuly (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Shogi Translation Project
[edit]Hello, I am part of a larger community of about 500 English speaking shogi players, many of whom would like to help translate and update the existing pages about shogi. However, none of us are very experienced with editing Wikipedia and we'd like some guidance and help to ensure we're following the standards already in place and making high quality articles. Is this project/proposal something that could be approved? Who should we reach out to? Thank you Jackuhlantern (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Jackuhlantern. You probably should take a look at the following pages for reference before getting too involved in such a project: Wikipedia:Translation, Help:Translation, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Wikipedias in other languages and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Wikipedia's licensing does permit the translation and re-use of content found in Wikipedia articles into English or other langauges, but it does require that such content be properly attributed to its source for it to not be considered a copyright violation. Whether people reusing Wikipedia content outside of Wikipedia comply with Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content isn't something Wikipedia really can control, but internally within cross-Wikipedia translated content that's not properly attributed can end up deleted per Wikipedia:Deletion policy; so, when you translate something from Japanese Wikipedia into English for use on English Wikipedia, make sure the original source article is properly attributed. Additionally, you should be competent enough in both English and Japanese to translate the source article and rewrite it in your "own words"; machine translations are pretty much frowned upon and should be avoided, and AI generated content is still quite a gray area that is considered questionable by many and runs the risk of being deleted. Most importantly, you need to understand that each Wikipedia is a separate project with its own policies and guidelines. There can be lots of similarities between English Wikipedia and the various other language Wikipedias, but there can also be some important differences. Many of the non-English Wikipedia have policies and guidelines similiar to English Wikipedias, but they aren't as rigorously enforced or applied since their respective communities of editors are usually smaller. So, just because there's an article about something shogi-related on Japanese Wikipedia, it's not automatic that a corresponding article about the same subject to also be added to English Wikipedia. English Wikipedia articles are ultimately going to be assessed based on Wikipedia:Notability so you should keep that in mind when creating an article. You should also be aware that sometimes the sources cited in Japanese Wikipedia articles aren't considered to be reliable for English Wikipedia's purposes per Wikipedia:Reliable sources; so, please keep this in mind when translating articles. Non-English sources can be cited as long as they're considered reliable for English Wikipedia's purposes as explained in Wikipedia:Verifiablity#Non-English sources. Even though you're not required to do so, my suggestion to you would to be to first work on some Wikipedia:Drafts and then submit them to Wikipedia:Articles for creation (AfC) for review until you get more familiar with the article creation process. The AfC process is optional, but it does give new Wikipedians the chance to have their work reveiwed and assessed by more experienced. Since AfC reviewers are only supposed to approve drafts that are unlikely going to end up being speedily or otherwise deleted, articles created this way generally seem to have a good chance of surviving. Of course, it's quite possible to create a proper article without going through this review process, but there does seem to be a greater risk, particularly for newer Wikipedians, of deletion. As for updating, existing articles, you can be Wikipedia:BOLD or Wikipedia:CAUTIOUS, but whatever changes you make should be improvements from a Wikipedia policy and guideline standpoint, and not simply just rewriting something according to personal preferences. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of style for general reference. Finally, even though creating new articles is an important part of Wikipedia, it's not the only part and there are many other ways to Wikipedia:Contribute. There are over six million Wikipedia articles and the vast majority of them can be improved in someway. Often the best way to be come more familiar with Wikipedia and how it works is to simply spend some time improving existing articles. Seeing how others have created, formatted and improved articles by applying various policies and guidelines can help you better understand them and apply them to your "own work". While it's OK to want to improve shogi-related content on Wikipedia, it can be a good thing to work on other stuff too because there's always something that needs to be improved and branching out into different areas will like help you become more balanced as an editor. Wikipedians who focus too much on one specific area can sometimes miss the bigger picture and find themselves having problems with others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Marchjuly,
- Thank you for your response. I had gone through a few of those articles prior to doing much, and have linked them to the others who are helping as well. I and the other people translating are bilingual (or competent in both languages) and very familiar with the subject material, so we feel comfortable that our translations (and additions/expansions where needed) will be accurate and readable. We aren't planning to create any new articles, only translating existing Japanese-only pages and improving any existing English versions of these pages. We are including both articles related to strategies and those related to events, and those that don't speak Japanese are helping to proofread and ensure quality. We're also sharing notes and checking references to ensure consistency for terms that are ambiguous or haven't been clearly defined.
- Our primary concern is that there is a distinct lack of English material online regarding shogi, and while Wikipedia already has several articles about it, many contain inaccuracies or are out-of-date compared to their Japanese counterparts. I can't speak for the others, but I don't know if I would be contributing much to Wikipedia outside of this subject. I think it would be mutually beneficial for Wikipedia to have accurate and current information in its articles and for the English-speaking world to have more easily-accessible information about the game and the culture surrounding it.
- I suppose I was ultimately wondering if this could become a WikiProject and what that would entail? I see I got assigned a mentor, so perhaps I can reach out to them to double-check that I'm properly linking back to the page with citations?
- Thank you and I appreciate your guidance. Jackuhlantern (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Jackuhlantern: Just a couple of comments based upon what you posted above. First, when you translate a Japanese Wikipedia article into English and then add that translation to English Wikipedia (like you did in the case of Ninja Silver), you are considered to be creating a "new article" and thus it's going to be assessed for inclusion according to English Wikipedia policies and guidelines (i.e. whether it meets Wikipedia:Notability). The fact that an article about the same subject matter exists on Japanese Wikipedia is irrelevant if the subject matter is not deemed to be English Wikipedia notable. So, when creating an article, it's a good idea to also be considering how you would argue in favor of keeping in terms of relevant English Wikipedia policy and guidelines if the article is subsequently tagged or nominated for deletion by another user. The best way to do this is to ensure that the article content is primarily based on WP:SIGCOV about the subject matter found in at least three WP:SECONDARY WP:RELIABLESOURCES because this is usually what is considered to be the threshold for keeping an article which has been nominated for deletion. Meeting this threshold can quite hard when it comes to articles about strategy or openings and simply citing books written by professional shogi players about such openings or strategies might not be seen as sufficient by some. It's a gamble whenever you create an article, but you should assume at the very least that you're going to at some point need to convince one or more people who know very little about the subject matter that it's Wikipedia notable in order to establish a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of keeping it. So, the more information you can provide about the historical background of an opening/strategy supported by citations to reliable sources that aren't really shogi opening/strategy books (so to speak), the better chance you have of the article being seen as something more (i.e. an encyclopedic entry) than just a "how to play better shogi" type of opening/strategy manuals with only diagrams and lines of play. Next, I agree that there's not a lot of information in English about shogi online; however, it's not the purpose of Wikipedia to fix such a problem. Wikipedia is really only intended to reflect what reliable sources are saying about a subject in an encyclopedic manner. Wikipedia isn't intended to be a source of new information. In addition, Wikipedia doesn't consider itself or any of the other langauge Wikipedia's to be a reliable sources as explained here, except perhaps when it's being used to cite content about itself. So, the fact that content is included in Japanese Wikipedia doesn't mean it's automatically OK for English Wikipedia, and anything you translate from Japanese Wikipedia needs to be supported by a citation to a reliable source; moreover, citations should preferably be WP:INCITEs as opposed to a WP:GENREFs to make the text-source integrity more apparent and aid in WP:VERIFICATION. Even if you know something to be true, it needs to be verifiable; otherwise, others might remove it per WP:UNSOURCED.Thirdly, if you're working with a group of others, you should make sure that everyone creates their own account because WP:SHAREDACCOUNTs are not allowed per Wikipedia policy. You should also explain to the others that disagreements over article content are going to be decided in accordance with WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION based on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Determining a consensus in the case of such disaggreement is not simply the case of counting who has the most votes, but rather whose arguments are more soundly based in relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please also keep in mind things like WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS when it comes to trying to resolve disputes, and remind the others to do so as well.Finally, new WikiProjects are supposed to be approved in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. Shogi-related content currently seems to fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess and Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games, and there generally needs to be sufficient and enduring interest among a relatively large number (more than 10 perhaps) of editors for a new project to be created and considered sustainable. Any project that looks as if it's going to whither and die on the vine after a short-priod of time due to disinterest or a lack of members is uniikely going to end up being approved. For what it's worth, a WikiProject is just like a giant water cooler where people who are interested in the same thing can discuss ways to improve Wikipedia's coverage of said thing. It doesn't make articles less deletable or less subject to relevant policies and guideines, and it doesn't "lock" articles that fall within it's scope to prevent them from being editing by non-WikiProject members. A WikiProject can provide some guidance on how to edit/format/source articles that fall within its scope and it can even assess them, but it can't do anything that supersedes or is contrary to community-wide policies and guidelines or a community-wide consensus. If you look at this proposals page, you'll see I initially made it in 2013, but it basically lingered as is until declined in 2019. During that six-year period, there never seemed to be a sufficient number of editors who could be found to make such a project work. For the longest time, it was mainly myself and Ish ishwar who only seemed to be interested (Ish ishwar created pretty much all of the strategy/opening articles) with occassionally someone else showing up for a bit. You're free of course to try and get the ball rolling again, but you're probably going to need to find more established users who are interested in joining since a bunch of new accounts saying let's start a WikiProject is unlikely going to be considered sufficient. A WP:TASKFORCE to WikiProject Japan or one of the other two WikiProjects might be a more achievable goal at this point. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Marchjuly
- I appreciate your patience and taking the time to provide such thorough explanations. I think my group and I have perhaps misunderstood Wikipedia's purpose as a generalized database/encyclopedia of knowledge on all manner of subjects. It sounds like the review process is more rigorous than I'd thought.
- If I look up any chess article, particularly those on openings, they all seem to exclusively cite books on chess strategy written by chess players, and primarily show the lines, positions, and note some examples of games. Would this be an acceptable standard to compare against? If, as you've said, there is not very much interest, is it likely that the articles we create will be noticed and deleted? I think we'd still strive to make them quality articles with inline citations, but the wealth of information on the game is in untranslated, Japanese books and articles, and I'm not sure how easily verifiable they'd be for English Wikipedia editors.
- I also want to clarify that we are not sharing accounts, just sharing notes. I'll ask the others what they think of trying to work with WikiProject Japan, but at this point many feel the barrier to entry is too high and it'd be easier to just host our own knowledge share.
- Again, I appreciate you responding so quickly and thoroughly. Jackuhlantern (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's purpose is explained in Wikipedia:Purpose. As for the review process, it's something that new/newish editors or editors not too experienced in article creation are strongly encouraged to take advantage of, but it's still optional at this point; it's also not without its flaws. Many articles have been created and still are being created much in the same way you created "Ninja Silver": someone thinks something/someone should have a Wikipedia article written about it and go ahead and do so. There are over six million articles and most of them have probably been created this way; this, however, means that they're are many articles that probably shouldn't have been created over the years but just have been flying under the radar waiting for someone to notice them, assess them and make a judgement call as to whether they're too unfixable and should be tagged, proposed or nominated for deletion per WP:LONGTIME. If you want to see some examples of this in progress, you can look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion or Category:Proposed deletion. There is a sort of formal review process for articles created this way called WP:NPP, but there's always a backlong because of the number of "new pages" being created tends to exceed those interested in reviewing/assessing them. Whether any article you create gets noticed depends on all kinds of factors, but you probably shouldn't be striving to create articles that are going to go "unnoticed". If you looking to do something like that, then there are probably WP:ALTERNATIVEs to Wikipedia that probably you with more freedom and editorial control, while also allowing you to make your own "rules" so to speak. Each article has a different path to follow, but ideally (IMO) they should all start out with a sound enough foundation per WP:OVERCOME to avoid any concerns about their Wikipedia notability so that others who come later can improve and expand them (if possible).As mentioned above, Wikipedia's has more than six million articles, some of which probably shouldn't have been created. Trying to argue that one article should be allowed to exist because other similar articles already exist is generally not considered a valid reason to keep something per WP:OSE. People like to create/edit articles about subjects that interest them; so, there's nothing wrong about wanting to create more articles about shogi-related stuff. You should, however, expect those articles to be ultimately assessed on their own merits based on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The people doing the assessing may have never played a game of shogi or have no real interest in the subject matter per se, but they may be experienced enough in things Wikipedia to know how its policies and guidelines should be applied. It's easier to argue in favor of keeping something when the argument is not one of WP:PPOV, but rather one based on relevant policies and guidelines. Wikipedia only requires that sources cited in support of article content be reliable (as defined by the Wikipedia community), which further requires that they be WP:PUBLISHED. Any articles which are seen as being be nothing more that WP:OR are going to have little chance of surviving being nominated for deletion. Sources aren't required to be in English per se as long as they're reliable, but it helps aid in verification when they are. You can cite Japanese shogi books in articles about shogi, but you should probably be willing to explain, justify or otherwise defend those sources if they're challenged; you could simply say to someone "check it yourself" or "use Google translate", but that could end up being counterproductive. The more secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject matter you can cite (avoiding obviously redundant sources for the same content), the better off you will be. My personal opinion is that the more background you can provide and reliably cite about the (historical) significance and impact of a particular opening variation or strategy so that article appears to be more that a short introductory paragraph followed by multiple diagrams and sections on lines of play, the more likely its going to be seen as an encyclopedic article instead of an instructional manual. Since you're post mentioned articles about chess openings, you might find perusing through the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess archives and looking at the various discussions the members of that WikiProject have had about such articles over the years interesting. Regardless, the thing to remember about WikiProjects is that whatever they decide to do can't take precedence of whatever the community has decided to do. If you want to see some examples of this, then take a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 133#RfC on secondary school notability and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Marchjuly.
- After discussing and reviewing some of the guidelines and articles you linked, we've decided to simply create our own "Shogi Wiki", rather than creating a lot of articles that may not pass Wikipedia's standards. I did see that (although not recommended) Wikipedia can be used as a source ala Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia, although it looks like there are different standards depending on the language.
- Speaking for myself, I would still be interested in updating some of Wikipedia's articles with more complete information, but will try to keep to more notable articles, with information I've verified in published sources. Please do let me know if others express interest in revitalizing this project and I'd be happy to help. Jackuhlantern (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's purpose is explained in Wikipedia:Purpose. As for the review process, it's something that new/newish editors or editors not too experienced in article creation are strongly encouraged to take advantage of, but it's still optional at this point; it's also not without its flaws. Many articles have been created and still are being created much in the same way you created "Ninja Silver": someone thinks something/someone should have a Wikipedia article written about it and go ahead and do so. There are over six million articles and most of them have probably been created this way; this, however, means that they're are many articles that probably shouldn't have been created over the years but just have been flying under the radar waiting for someone to notice them, assess them and make a judgement call as to whether they're too unfixable and should be tagged, proposed or nominated for deletion per WP:LONGTIME. If you want to see some examples of this in progress, you can look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion or Category:Proposed deletion. There is a sort of formal review process for articles created this way called WP:NPP, but there's always a backlong because of the number of "new pages" being created tends to exceed those interested in reviewing/assessing them. Whether any article you create gets noticed depends on all kinds of factors, but you probably shouldn't be striving to create articles that are going to go "unnoticed". If you looking to do something like that, then there are probably WP:ALTERNATIVEs to Wikipedia that probably you with more freedom and editorial control, while also allowing you to make your own "rules" so to speak. Each article has a different path to follow, but ideally (IMO) they should all start out with a sound enough foundation per WP:OVERCOME to avoid any concerns about their Wikipedia notability so that others who come later can improve and expand them (if possible).As mentioned above, Wikipedia's has more than six million articles, some of which probably shouldn't have been created. Trying to argue that one article should be allowed to exist because other similar articles already exist is generally not considered a valid reason to keep something per WP:OSE. People like to create/edit articles about subjects that interest them; so, there's nothing wrong about wanting to create more articles about shogi-related stuff. You should, however, expect those articles to be ultimately assessed on their own merits based on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The people doing the assessing may have never played a game of shogi or have no real interest in the subject matter per se, but they may be experienced enough in things Wikipedia to know how its policies and guidelines should be applied. It's easier to argue in favor of keeping something when the argument is not one of WP:PPOV, but rather one based on relevant policies and guidelines. Wikipedia only requires that sources cited in support of article content be reliable (as defined by the Wikipedia community), which further requires that they be WP:PUBLISHED. Any articles which are seen as being be nothing more that WP:OR are going to have little chance of surviving being nominated for deletion. Sources aren't required to be in English per se as long as they're reliable, but it helps aid in verification when they are. You can cite Japanese shogi books in articles about shogi, but you should probably be willing to explain, justify or otherwise defend those sources if they're challenged; you could simply say to someone "check it yourself" or "use Google translate", but that could end up being counterproductive. The more secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject matter you can cite (avoiding obviously redundant sources for the same content), the better off you will be. My personal opinion is that the more background you can provide and reliably cite about the (historical) significance and impact of a particular opening variation or strategy so that article appears to be more that a short introductory paragraph followed by multiple diagrams and sections on lines of play, the more likely its going to be seen as an encyclopedic article instead of an instructional manual. Since you're post mentioned articles about chess openings, you might find perusing through the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess archives and looking at the various discussions the members of that WikiProject have had about such articles over the years interesting. Regardless, the thing to remember about WikiProjects is that whatever they decide to do can't take precedence of whatever the community has decided to do. If you want to see some examples of this, then take a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 133#RfC on secondary school notability and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Jackuhlantern: Just a couple of comments based upon what you posted above. First, when you translate a Japanese Wikipedia article into English and then add that translation to English Wikipedia (like you did in the case of Ninja Silver), you are considered to be creating a "new article" and thus it's going to be assessed for inclusion according to English Wikipedia policies and guidelines (i.e. whether it meets Wikipedia:Notability). The fact that an article about the same subject matter exists on Japanese Wikipedia is irrelevant if the subject matter is not deemed to be English Wikipedia notable. So, when creating an article, it's a good idea to also be considering how you would argue in favor of keeping in terms of relevant English Wikipedia policy and guidelines if the article is subsequently tagged or nominated for deletion by another user. The best way to do this is to ensure that the article content is primarily based on WP:SIGCOV about the subject matter found in at least three WP:SECONDARY WP:RELIABLESOURCES because this is usually what is considered to be the threshold for keeping an article which has been nominated for deletion. Meeting this threshold can quite hard when it comes to articles about strategy or openings and simply citing books written by professional shogi players about such openings or strategies might not be seen as sufficient by some. It's a gamble whenever you create an article, but you should assume at the very least that you're going to at some point need to convince one or more people who know very little about the subject matter that it's Wikipedia notable in order to establish a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of keeping it. So, the more information you can provide about the historical background of an opening/strategy supported by citations to reliable sources that aren't really shogi opening/strategy books (so to speak), the better chance you have of the article being seen as something more (i.e. an encyclopedic entry) than just a "how to play better shogi" type of opening/strategy manuals with only diagrams and lines of play. Next, I agree that there's not a lot of information in English about shogi online; however, it's not the purpose of Wikipedia to fix such a problem. Wikipedia is really only intended to reflect what reliable sources are saying about a subject in an encyclopedic manner. Wikipedia isn't intended to be a source of new information. In addition, Wikipedia doesn't consider itself or any of the other langauge Wikipedia's to be a reliable sources as explained here, except perhaps when it's being used to cite content about itself. So, the fact that content is included in Japanese Wikipedia doesn't mean it's automatically OK for English Wikipedia, and anything you translate from Japanese Wikipedia needs to be supported by a citation to a reliable source; moreover, citations should preferably be WP:INCITEs as opposed to a WP:GENREFs to make the text-source integrity more apparent and aid in WP:VERIFICATION. Even if you know something to be true, it needs to be verifiable; otherwise, others might remove it per WP:UNSOURCED.Thirdly, if you're working with a group of others, you should make sure that everyone creates their own account because WP:SHAREDACCOUNTs are not allowed per Wikipedia policy. You should also explain to the others that disagreements over article content are going to be decided in accordance with WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION based on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Determining a consensus in the case of such disaggreement is not simply the case of counting who has the most votes, but rather whose arguments are more soundly based in relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please also keep in mind things like WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS when it comes to trying to resolve disputes, and remind the others to do so as well.Finally, new WikiProjects are supposed to be approved in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. Shogi-related content currently seems to fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess and Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games, and there generally needs to be sufficient and enduring interest among a relatively large number (more than 10 perhaps) of editors for a new project to be created and considered sustainable. Any project that looks as if it's going to whither and die on the vine after a short-priod of time due to disinterest or a lack of members is uniikely going to end up being approved. For what it's worth, a WikiProject is just like a giant water cooler where people who are interested in the same thing can discuss ways to improve Wikipedia's coverage of said thing. It doesn't make articles less deletable or less subject to relevant policies and guideines, and it doesn't "lock" articles that fall within it's scope to prevent them from being editing by non-WikiProject members. A WikiProject can provide some guidance on how to edit/format/source articles that fall within its scope and it can even assess them, but it can't do anything that supersedes or is contrary to community-wide policies and guidelines or a community-wide consensus. If you look at this proposals page, you'll see I initially made it in 2013, but it basically lingered as is until declined in 2019. During that six-year period, there never seemed to be a sufficient number of editors who could be found to make such a project work. For the longest time, it was mainly myself and Ish ishwar who only seemed to be interested (Ish ishwar created pretty much all of the strategy/opening articles) with occassionally someone else showing up for a bit. You're free of course to try and get the ball rolling again, but you're probably going to need to find more established users who are interested in joining since a bunch of new accounts saying let's start a WikiProject is unlikely going to be considered sufficient. A WP:TASKFORCE to WikiProject Japan or one of the other two WikiProjects might be a more achievable goal at this point. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)