Talk:List of chess games

message: It's surprising to find no Mikhail Tal's game here. Didn't play some of the most exciting chess ever?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anikulkarni (talk • contribs) 05:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: No Mikhail Tal?

message: I don't know if anyone's noticed yet, but the hyperlink from "Bowdler-Conway, London 1788" seems to be completely off-subject. It leads to a page about Bowdler and doesn't seem to have anything to do with chess. Just thought I would point it out. Daniel Montin 17:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad link

message: This article has a big problem: it doesn't explain what makes a game worthy of inclusion here. Sources should be added, else the article should be AfDed. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was probably the choice of an editor or editors as to what games are included. It could follow a source such as The World's Greatest Chess Games, by Burgess, Nunn, and Emms, or something similar to that.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

text: What makes a game notable is whether it's covered in multiple sources. Agree that more sources should be added, or a link in some cases (i.e. Immortal game), or games removed. AFD applies to the whole article not individual games and so would not be appropriate in this situation. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree about multiple sources needed. Is it ok to have external links in the middle of the text?OTAVIO1981 (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Like Sun Creator, I don't see any real justification for losing the article - it is generally a fine set of games, worthy of inclusion. However, we do need to be vigilant in including only those games that can be backed up by reliable sources. I'd be happy with sources such as Bubba suggests, or even a passing comment by a recognized author that he/she considers the game "one of the greatest of all time", or "one of the best examples in history of ...". Where we probably have to draw the line is with the inclusion of games that cannot be sourced in this way, or where sources show only a lesser form of praise, like "this was a great game", or similar. Of course the article title is not great, as it more or less suggests that any game may be appropriate for inclusion. The introduction is also not very illuminating, as 'notable' is a subjective term. I can certainly see how an article revamp would be of benefit, but it probably won't happen overnight. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Notable" means it could support its own article acc. to WP:GNG, so that isn't too subjective. (Right? Or, how do you mean?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Bumping this before starting cleanup. As the point raised above, we can't include every chess game ever played, and basing importance on editor judgment doesn't work per WP:NOR. Given the common selection criteria, the entries should probably be considered individually notable, which means some minimum level of sourcing that would be sufficient to justify the game having its own article (with exception if the sources are many but the content is little). Since more than a year has gone by without anybody adding these sources, it seems safe to assume that it's not happening soon. Objections to removing the external links and unsourced games without their own articles? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is an example of old-school wikipedia, back when it was a free for all, people did what they liked and it was expected to all come out in the wash in the end. The recent IP edits are very much in that spirit. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion 

message: We have an article on this (admittedly fictional) chess game, Poole versus HAL 9000. Any reason it's not listed in this article? Banedon (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there's no objection I'm adding this. Banedon (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poole versus HAL 9000