| Revision as of 16:09, 20 July 2018 editTronvillain (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,186 edits →Three-check chess: redirect← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:39, 20 July 2018 edit undoIhardlythinkso (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers75,470 edits →Three-check chess: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| *'''Comment'''. There are very few books on chess variants (CVs), few sources in general, and that is the nature of the beast regarding the entire CV category, so ''multiple sources with significant coverage'' isn't realistic for the category, and GNG is intentionally written flexible to allow for such situation. {{u|Andreas Kaufmann}}, originator of this article and respected member of ], has said, consistent with that context, that inclusion in Pritchard's ''Encyclopedia of Chess Variants'' is sufficient for ] for chess variant articles like this. That has been the ongoing precedent at WP:CHESS for as long as I've been here, and for numerous years prior. (Bringing an axe now is appropriate? Axing one article in isolation of many similar others following the WP:CHESS precedent is appropriate?) Thanks for consider. p.s. Pinging {{u|Seraphimblade}} for real-life example of . --] (]) 06:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC) | *'''Comment'''. There are very few books on chess variants (CVs), few sources in general, and that is the nature of the beast regarding the entire CV category, so ''multiple sources with significant coverage'' isn't realistic for the category, and GNG is intentionally written flexible to allow for such situation. {{u|Andreas Kaufmann}}, originator of this article and respected member of ], has said, consistent with that context, that inclusion in Pritchard's ''Encyclopedia of Chess Variants'' is sufficient for ] for chess variant articles like this. That has been the ongoing precedent at WP:CHESS for as long as I've been here, and for numerous years prior. (Bringing an axe now is appropriate? Axing one article in isolation of many similar others following the WP:CHESS precedent is appropriate?) Thanks for consider. p.s. Pinging {{u|Seraphimblade}} for real-life example of . --] (]) 06:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC) | ||
| :*A condition like "inclusion in encyclopedia X" can indicate notability and appears in one or more SNGs when the encyclopedias it's talking about are the sort that are highly selective and serve as an indication of importance -- an indication that there are other sources covering the topic. Inclusion in most subject-specific encyclopedias is not a guarantee of that, however (except for certain biographical dictionaries, say), as they're often much more inclusive and/or more likely to include primary research and/or less subject to peer-review and/or less of a big deal (for whatever that's worth). In this case, it seems he was trying to include basically every variant he could find that he could write a little bit of content about. Even if he was a little selective, there's no indication (at least for this example -- I'm not trying to generalize) that there's any other coverage in secondary sources. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC) | :*A condition like "inclusion in encyclopedia X" can indicate notability and appears in one or more SNGs when the encyclopedias it's talking about are the sort that are highly selective and serve as an indication of importance -- an indication that there are other sources covering the topic. Inclusion in most subject-specific encyclopedias is not a guarantee of that, however (except for certain biographical dictionaries, say), as they're often much more inclusive and/or more likely to include primary research and/or less subject to peer-review and/or less of a big deal (for whatever that's worth). In this case, it seems he was trying to include basically every variant he could find that he could write a little bit of content about. Even if he was a little selective, there's no indication (at least for this example -- I'm not trying to generalize) that there's any other coverage in secondary sources. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ::*There you go ''again'', mouthing off your own ] re how Pritchard writes (''again''), when in fact you don't know what you're taking about (''again''). From the ''Introduction'' to ''The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants'', p. vii: <blockquote> The length of this book might suggest that I have included everything on the subject I could find. This is far from being the case: hundreds of games have been excluded, and in many cases files have been compressed into an entry of just a few lines. {{parabr}}I have applied certain criteria to selection. To earn an entry, a game must have been published in some form, or at the least played by a significant number of people outside the inventor's circle of family and friends; alternatively, it must have some historical or other good claim to inclusion. </blockquote> I'm sick of shielding from your steady ] WP:OR trying to steamroll discussions. E.g., your non-consensus pushy reorg at ] caused me to withdrawl from editing that article--permanently. --] (]) 19:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''. The rules are covered by two other RSs, the documentation of ] and ] (which was the actual reason I came to the RS noticeboard) There’s also written by ], which we could incorporate into the article. This isn’t quite a “gold-standard” source like a peer-reviewed journal, but for chess purposes it’s reasonable. | *'''Keep'''. The rules are covered by two other RSs, the documentation of ] and ] (which was the actual reason I came to the RS noticeboard) There’s also written by ], which we could incorporate into the article. This isn’t quite a “gold-standard” source like a peer-reviewed journal, but for chess purposes it’s reasonable. | ||
Revision as of 19:39, 20 July 2018
Three-check chess
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Three-check chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rhodo, at WP:RSN, indicated a lack of reliable sources covering the topic in significance. This indicates the topic fails to meet the bar of the WP:GNG. Izno (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites \\ 04:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of chess variants#Unorthodox rules on a standard 8×8 board, where it is listed. Putting aside the specifics of the dispute that led to this for the time being, we have only one relatively reliable secondary source to use for this article: half of one paragraph in the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants. That's simply not enough -- as we've seen, it doesn't even clearly present the rules, meaning we either present a partial ruleset based on a single source or turn to less desirable sources (e.g. primary sources of sites that host the game). — Rhododendrites \\ 04:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- "
Half of one paragraph
" is nonsensical, an attempt to argue "insufficient length" and therefore "insufficient depth". When (as I've already explained and you already ignored), the game rules are ultra simple, not requiring length to precisely elaborate, and Pritchard is a master of writing efficiency. And I've provided plenty of relevant context (Chapter 10 head, Chapter 10 intro, subsection 10.3 head, and subsection 10.3 entries) demo'ing Pritchard's writing style, which you've summarily ignored as well. --IHTS (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)- It's not nonsensical. It's quite simple. There is a paragraph. Three sentences within the paragraph -- about one half -- are about this game. I don't care about your personal interpretations/reviews of his writing style. We're not compiling pithy quips such that we should consider three sentences a wealth; we need enough material to write an encyclopedia article, and we need multiple sources so we're not just basing our permastub on these three sentences. There is absolutely no way to say that those three sentences constitute in depth coverage. That's not to say they count for nothing. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- "
- Comment. There are very few books on chess variants (CVs), few sources in general, and that is the nature of the beast regarding the entire CV category, so multiple sources with significant coverage isn't realistic for the category, and GNG is intentionally written flexible to allow for such situation. Andreas Kaufmann, originator of this article and respected member of WP:CHESS, has said, consistent with that context, that inclusion in Pritchard's Encyclopedia of Chess Variants is sufficient for WP:Notability for chess variant articles like this. That has been the ongoing precedent at WP:CHESS for as long as I've been here, and for numerous years prior. (Bringing an axe now is appropriate? Axing one article in isolation of many similar others following the WP:CHESS precedent is appropriate?) Thanks for consider. p.s. Pinging Seraphimblade for real-life example of this. --IHTS (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- A condition like "inclusion in encyclopedia X" can indicate notability and appears in one or more SNGs when the encyclopedias it's talking about are the sort that are highly selective and serve as an indication of importance -- an indication that there are other sources covering the topic. Inclusion in most subject-specific encyclopedias is not a guarantee of that, however (except for certain biographical dictionaries, say), as they're often much more inclusive and/or more likely to include primary research and/or less subject to peer-review and/or less of a big deal (for whatever that's worth). In this case, it seems he was trying to include basically every variant he could find that he could write a little bit of content about. Even if he was a little selective, there's no indication (at least for this example -- I'm not trying to generalize) that there's any other coverage in secondary sources. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- There you go again, mouthing off your own WP:OR re how Pritchard writes (again), when in fact you don't know what you're taking about (again). From the Introduction to The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, p. vii:
I'm sick of shielding from your steady WP:IDHT WP:OR trying to steamroll discussions. E.g., your non-consensus pushy reorg at List of chess variants caused me to withdrawl from editing that article--permanently. --IHTS (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)The length of this book might suggest that I have included everything on the subject I could find. This is far from being the case: hundreds of games have been excluded, and in many cases files have been compressed into an entry of just a few lines.
I have applied certain criteria to selection. To earn an entry, a game must have been published in some form, or at the least played by a significant number of people outside the inventor's circle of family and friends; alternatively, it must have some historical or other good claim to inclusion.
- There you go again, mouthing off your own WP:OR re how Pritchard writes (again), when in fact you don't know what you're taking about (again). From the Introduction to The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, p. vii:
- Keep. The rules are covered by two other RSs, the documentation of Lichess and Chess.com (which was the actual reason I came to the RS noticeboard) There’s also some basic strategy stuff on Chess.com written by Daniel Rensch, which we could incorporate into the article. This isn’t quite a “gold-standard” source like a peer-reviewed journal, but for chess purposes it’s reasonable.
- Regarding notability, it’s also notable that through Chess.com and Lichess this game is widely played. Lichess records 2m games, I’m not as familiar with Chess.com to get similar records, but it’s the bigger site. There are plenty of articles about chess variants that exist due to mention by Pritchard but have little or no evidence of actually being significantly played—and could probably be nominated en mass—but this isn’t one of them IMO. —LukeSurl 06:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- A published set of rules on a website that hosts the game may be reliable to cite for the rules, but it's very much a primary source and doesn't really add to notability (being primary, and not being actual coverage in the first place but rather a reproduction of the rules that, recent discussions aside, are the same everywhere on the internet). We don't necessarily need journals, but we need more than 3 sentences in one book and a bunch of primary sources. I think atomic chess and bughouse might be a decent example. They lowers the bar a little for the quality of sources, and thus should probably never be a GA/FA (bughouse being GA based on a bunch of SPS is bizarre, but that's another story), but there's enough coverage to make an article beyond what would be mentioned in the list article. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect- after getting a little distracted by all the yelling about which sources are reliable, and how we should interpret a source not saying something, I am now convinced by the areguments that this isn't individually notable. A mention at List of chess variants#Unorthodox rules on a standard 8×8 board is all that's necessary. Reyk YO! 07:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per LukeSurl. Sufficient sources exist for a standalone article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of chess variants#Unorthodox rules on a standard 8×8 board. 43% off the variants listed at List of chess variants have no Misplaced Pages page. 57% do. Sovereign Chess has no Misplaced Pages page, but has a 97-word description at List of chess variants. Three-check chess has a Misplaced Pages page and an 80 word description that could easily be trimmed to 60 words or so if moved to List of chess variants (no need for "is a chess variant; it plays with the same rules as chess, with the addition..." or "It is catalogued in David Pritchard's The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants" -- a cite will do). There simply is not enough to say about three-check chess to justify a stand-alone article. Everything in the article could easily fit into an entry on the list without it being anywhere near the size of the longest existing description on the list. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to the entry at List of chess variants#Unorthodox rules on a standard 8×8 board. A single short entry in an encyclopedia of chess variants can't be considered significant coverage. It's an extremely simple description, and the reference can be moved to the list. --tronvillain (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)