Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 4

message: There is an AfD for Grünfeld 4.Bf4.  EliminatorJR, is the merged article ready yet?  Bubba73 (talk), 19:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: Should Grunfeld be used instead of Grünfeld?  Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) indicates that it should.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion definitely not. I don't even see anything to support your interpretation of the naming conventions. Namely it says that "There is disagreement as to whether German, Icelandic and Faroese names need transliteration for the characters ß, þ and ð. There is disagreement over whether to use œ and æ." Nothing on ü. Before those, it even says that "A survey that ran from April 2005 to October 2005 ended with a result of 62–46 (57.4%–42.6%) in favor of diacritics". Being Finnish, ä and ö are critical parts of my language so I know the need for the diacritics. Kimi Räikkönen, for example, sounds just silly when spelled "Raikkonen", not to mention spelling Teemu Selänne as "Selanne". --ZeroOne (talk | @) 22:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the top it says "Article titles should use the Latin alphabet, not any other alphabets or other writing systems such as syllabaries or Chinese characters. However, any non-Latin-alphabet native name should be given within the first line of the article (with a Latin-alphabet transliteration if the English name does not correspond to a transliteration of the native name)".  "ü" is not in the Latin alphabet, and it is not on US keyboards.  A transliteration of it is "u", and there are books that do that.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS, I'm talking about in the title only.  An American would type in "Grunfeld" in the search field, having ho practical way to type "Grünfeld".  Bubba73 (talk), 23:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doesn't the search function ignore diacritics anyway?  EliminatorJR Talk 00:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aparantly not, because when I enter "Grunfeld 4.Bf4" it doesn't find "Grünfeld 4.Bf4". Bubba73 (talk), 01:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, you're right.  Having said that, the main article (which is the only one now remaining) has a redirect from Grunfeld Defence (and Grunfeld Defense) anyway, so it probably doesn't make any difference now. EliminatorJR Talk 01:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  In this specific instance, The Oxford Companion to Chess, MCO-14, and NCO all use the Grünfeld spelling, so we should too.  I think it's appropriate to use the correct name and add redirects as needed to make it easy to find.  WP:ENGLISH suggests use of the most common name in English.  Although the Grunfeld and Gruenfeld transliterations were popular in the past, it looks to me that the recent trend is strongly toward using Grünfeld.  I think this has to be considered case by case.  I involved myself in some ugly business concerning the page titles of some chess bios (Talk:Arpad Elo) and there I felt strongly that the opposite result was correct. Quale 05:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Quale here who argues for following general convention, due to the presence of diacritics in the most reputable pieces of literature which can be found, we can keep them here as well. We need to be dilligent about placing good redirects however. (I have faced similar problems when writing Norway-related articles since the Norwegian alphabet has three extra letters, leading to all sorts of complications on the English Wikipedia.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grunfeld and naming conventions 

message: FrozenPurpleCube has now slapped {fact} tags all over the merged article, even on parts that are definitions of the opening and other parts that are sourced by the referenced books.  I sense thin edge of a wedge.  Comments? EliminatorJR Talk 10:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grunfeld merged article

message: I have added some new claims to a couple of articles, namely to Sicilian Defence and King's Gambit, using a Finnish chess book as a reference. Wikipedia:Verifiability says that it is perfectly ok to use foreign language sources but English language sources are of course encouraged. What do you think, would you like me to continue adding Finnish sources, as I don't really have an access to any English chess books? Can someone find books in English that can replace the Finnish references? I think that it is better to cite a book than a random web page, but do you think it is the same if the book is in a foreign language? --ZeroOne (talk | @) 15:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign language sources 

message: Next one up (I'm going in alphabetic order here) - Alekhine's Defence (3 pages).  Shouldn't be too much of a problem.
Looking ahead - issues I've thought of....
*Queen's Gambit; separate pages for Accepted and Declined, or one article?
*King's Indian Defence; one article?
*Sicilian Defence; one article for mainline and one for Dragon, or one article?
Thoughts?
EliminatorJR Talk 00:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have worked on Alekhine's Defense some last night and earlier today and merged a couple of articles.  I was planning to work on the other two, but I haven't put any time into it yet.  If someone else wants to do them - go ahead.  Otherwise, I will probably do it soon.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the above on almost all points.  Queen's Gambit Declined, Mainline Orthodox Defense was named "Mainline Orthodox Defense" and yesterday I renamed it by prepending "QGD".  I don't think it should be named "Orthodox defense" since it is part of QGD.   How about simply taking out "mainline"?  My reasoning is that the name of the overall opening should come first.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My reason for this is that if a reader goes to the Chess Openings Category or to list of chess topics then all of the QGD variants would be together, and the same with the Sicilian and Ruy Lopez.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point makes sense to me, and I don't think I gave enough thought to that issue.  It is possible (and I think desirable) to create redirects from Najdorf Variation, Dragon Variation, etc. to the longer titles, to make things easier for those who search.  The long names do sort more nicely in lists and categories. Quale 04:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Merge Pages

message: I have now problems with biographiea of Jewish players like Wilhelm Steinitz, Reuben Fine, Mikhail Botvinnik etc. - a user who in my opinion does not fully respect manual of style and WP:NPOV tries to stress their Jewishness - adds external links to dubious sites in the body of articles etc. I am near to three reverts rule in some cases and do not like edit wars at all. Therefore I need a help of others - can you please try to find a solution? --Ioannes Pragensis 17:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thank you, Ioannes Pragensis 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help please: biographies of Jewish players 

message: Regarding the Opening Stubs subcategory of Chess Openings:
* Grunfeld 4.Bf4 needs to be deleted, since it has been merged.  But that is being held up by a AfD.
* the two Pirc stubs need to be merged. (done)
* QGD, 3...f6 needs to be merged (done) (added:) and QGD, Mainline Orthodox Defense.  Someone mentioned that they were working on QGD.
* Ruy Lopez subvarations - all of these need to be merged. -- done except for Exchange and Marshall
* Sicilian subvarations - all of these need to be merged. - done!
The rest of the stubs can stay.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some variations deserve their own article and some are too stubby (at present).  The Exchange version in the main article is too long and probably duplicates a lot of the sub-article.  I think the main article section on the Exchange should be shortened, making sure not to lose any information that could go in the sub-article.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes its almost like telepathy.  The Exchange Variation is one that I thought had enough detail so that it should be split out.  Right now it's one of the longest sections and although it has great history (Lasker-Capablanca, St. Petersburg 1914 and later Fischer), it certainly isn't the most important. This throws the sections kind of out of balance.  Quale 21:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article on the Ruy Exchange is big enough to stand by itself.  Other branches as the Open defense and Marshall may be too.  I'm pretty sure they are each more extensive than the Exchange, so it does seem out of balance with the Exchange having its own article.  However, the size of the Exchange article seems to merit it.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Ruy Exchange article is large enough, but it is not organized very well.  Also too much "arguably the best... ", etc.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment of the situation regarding opening stubs