Undid revision 905191824 by MaxBrowne2 (talk) Have you read WP:CANVASS? I've pinged you twice at ANI. Next time is WP:ANEW Tag: Undo |
MaxBrowne2 (talk | contribs) Undid revision 905191996 by TParis (talk) you do not remove people's legitimate discussions from talk pages. period. Tag: Undo |
||
Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
At [[King and pawn versus king endgame]] an anonomous editor removing referenced material and added un-referenced material. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] <sup>[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]</sup> 23:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC) |
At [[King and pawn versus king endgame]] an anonomous editor removing referenced material and added un-referenced material. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] <sup>[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]</sup> 23:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
== |
== [[History of chess]] == |
||
[[File:Farm-Fresh eye.png|15px|link=|alt=]] You are invited to join the discussion at [[Talk:History of chess#Greco-Roman origin of chess]]. [[User:No Great Shaker|No Great Shaker]] ([[User talk:No Great Shaker|talk]]) 10:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC){{Z48}}<!-- [[Template:Please see]] --> |
|||
An editor wants to give equal validity to a fringe theory that chess originated from [[ludus latrunculorum]] despite complete lack of evidence. [[User:MaxBrowne2|MaxBrowne2]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne2|talk]]) 03:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:14, 7 July 2019
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
WikiProject Chess Shortcut: WP:CHESS | ||
Navigation Menu | ||
Project Page | talk | |
talk | ||
Assessment statistics | talk | |
Review | talk | |
Chess Portal | talk | |
Skip to: Bottom of page to add a new topic or see most recent new topics
A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
- – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
interactive game viewer (again)
hi all.
so some of you may remember previous attempts to enable "interactive chess viewer" on enwiki.
some previous discussions can be found on Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Interactive chess boards and its talk page (i think this contains links to even older discussions).
some updates:
- it seems that User:Fred Gandt abandoned (or at least, "postponed indefinitely") his proposal
- i did make some changes in my viewer, that answer some, though not all, of User:Krinkle's critique (summarized below)
- some more projects started using the viewer. specifically, Hebrew wikibooks, Russian wikipedia, and Russian wikinews
- viewer changes summary (* marks items criticized by Krinkle)
- * dependencies: reduced the dependencies to just "tabs"
- * script no longer loads images, and instead, images are loaded via CSS (using background-image). pretty much same list of images any use of {{Chess diagram}} loads, plus some images for the buttons.
- animation: animation is now done by css "transition" instead of jquery .animate() from the script (except "smooth scrolling", which still uses jquery animation).
- * display inconsistency: gone. until script finishes loading, there's a space on the page waiting for it
- viewer is now mobile friendly. some cooperation from "interface editors" (people with permission to edit in mediawiki namespace) is needed, so for now, only hewiki _actually_ enables the viewer on mobile, and it's possible that the mobile view is loees polished
i suggestion you look again at the viewer, and consider again using it on enwiki. here is a list of pages with the viewer active:
- hewiki: he:מיכאל בוטביניק (interwiki of Mikhail Botvinnik). can be viewed on mobile too.
- ruwiki: ru:Штейн, Леонид Захарович (interwiki of Leonid Stein. viewer at bottom of page)
- hebooks: he:b:שחמט/רישום מהלכים (this is a "guide" page. the viewer is used in some books which are still in draft stage)
- runewes: ru:n:Template: Pgnviewer (the template page, with demo. afaik, runews did not yet use it in actual article)
in light of the stagnation in Gandt's project, the improvement in my script, which, i believe, amends the bulk if the issues in Krinkle's critique, and the fact that more projects are starting to use it, i'd like to propose (again) that enwiki will consider adopting it too.
peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- The way the knights move sorta makes me seasick. How about changing to go as the crow flies? (Picking an particular "L"-pattern is subjective, & in a way misleading, too - it is how to learn the knight's move; not how to think or visualize it.) I'd also suggest to speed up the movements. (Clicking thru a game is slow-mo otherwise compared to other playthrus, e.g. Chessgames.com, 365chess.com etc.) --IHTS (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- the knight's move is just a little whimsical thing i did on hewiki - on ruwiki, runews, hebooks and ukwiki the knight moves as the crow flies, and i might straighten it on hewiki too. this is 100% incidental, and can be "fixed" by removing the 2 lines which implement this whim from the CSS. by using templatestyles, enwiki can control all the aspects of the display, up to and including changing the images used for the pieces, or even using the unicode "chess piece" characters instead of images (i think this is what Fred Gandt's demo uses).
- the tempo is set by the "transition" attribute in CSS (same one that implements the knight's perverted dance), and can be tuned from "teleportation" (zero animation, piece jumps from current square to destination) to "as slow as you want" - again, by utilizing templatestyles, enwiki can have full control, and be free of my, or anyone else's whims. (it's also possible to get the CSS from hewiki, in parallel to the script itself, for projects that choose not to be bothered with maintaining templatestyles). you may want to look at ruwiki - though they run the script from hewiki, both animation and the "algebraic notation" tab behave differently, under the control of the template.
- the delay between moves can be set by the template, or left to the reader (when the template does not set delay, the script displays "slower" and "faster" buttons).
- but all this is secondary - before discussing the knight's movement or the game tempo, enwiki has to decide whether it wants to utilize this. if it does, then we can start discussing tweaks. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Improving the table of GMs
I have just added FIDE IDs to List of chess grandmasters. I'd like to collaborate to make further improvements, see Talk:List of chess grandmasters#Improving the table of GMs for what I have in mind. The really interesting work is writing some simple programs to help automate discovery of new GMs from FIDE data to add to the table. (I wanted FIDE ID in the table to make it easier to match our table entries to FIDE records.) The article also needs help to verify and cite the table entries. Quale (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think any distinction should be made between "honorary grandmasters" and "full grandmasters". The majority of the honorary gm's genuinely were of grandmaster strength at their peak but were overlooked by the system as it was at the time. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- I thought FIDE got rid of the honorary system altogether and now regards them all as full GMs anyway.Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps there could be a note column where miscellaneous details such as "retrospective award" could be recorded. (I prefer "retrospective" rather than "honorary" which implies that they didn't truly earn the award). Also I don't agree with a "table of shame" for revoked GM titles, that could be included in the note column (or just omit them from the article). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Another note - I'm not sure that a "place of birth" column would be all that useful. Children of military and diplomatic personnel are often born in countries other than their actual nationality, one example I recently edited is Audra McDonald, and there are probably chess players born in similar circumstances. Nakamura also comes to mind - he was born in Japan but moved to the US when he was 2. He is ethnically Japanese but his nationality is US and Japan had no part in his chess development. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting points. I had hoped to keep most of the discussion on Talk:List of chess grandmasters nearer the article (my mention here was supposed to be only a pointer to discuss on the article talk page), but since we're here,
- Re: honorary GMs – yes, as far as I know FIDE isn't awarding any more HGM titles. I don't know if FIDE considers the older honorary awards to still be honorary or if they are now considered exactly the same as the standard GM award. In some ways an honorary GM is a more exclusive award since there are so many fewer of them than regular GMs. If we have a Notes column we can put a mention there if we like.
- About the revoked titles – The fact that there are any revoked titles at all is a point of a fair amount of interest. Putting fraudulent GMs in the main table with a note as we did before was bad. We could state in the list article that two revoked titles are not included. I see the title revocations are not described in grandmaster (chess), something we should fix regardless of whether the revoked GMs have a section in the list article.
- You make good points about including birthplace, and I think I won't make any efforts in that direction right now. I agree with your observation that birthplace isn't always indicative of where a chess player developed her skill, although I think the exceptions are a small fraction of the whole and we do have a federation column to help clarify that. (This would be especially true if we consistently recorded the player's federation at the time of the title award rather than claiming (and failing) to use the player's current federation.) Birthplace would also make the table significantly wider (possibly bad on devices with smaller screens) and the article larger and slower load (bad for everyone, especially on slow networks). The final negative is that it would increase the maintenance burden. On the plus side place of birth is an interesting biographical detail, and along with DOB, DOD and place of death is considered basic biographical information in encyclopedias. For many GMs we will have a bio article that should provide this, but some number of GMs probably won't have articles. On a strictly numerical count without weighting the relative importance of the pluses and minuses, there are more minuses. Also adding the column would be a lot of work, and it can be done later if we decide we want it. Quale (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I thought FIDE got rid of the honorary system altogether and now regards them all as full GMs anyway.Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- If you want you can copy this material to Talk:List of chess grandmasters. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I found 9 incorrect birthdays by looking at GMs with birth years that did not match the birth year in the FIDE rating lists. (Recent FIDE rating lists include only the birth year so the automated checking we can do is limited.) This suggests that there are probably quite a few more bad birthdays in the list, either due to typos we made or typos or mistakes in the online sources that we may have used such as chessgames.com. Quale (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- For "older" GMs, the complete date of birth can still be found at OlimpBase, which has records of all rating lists from 1971 to 2001. Sophia91 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Another online resource for old ratings is benoni.de, which includes the period from 2001, e.g. http://www.benoni.de/schach/elo/elohis.html?id=1700014&lang=en. It should be treated as unofficial, but it can be used to check the rating history of individual players and the data there can be confirmed at https://ratings.fide.com/download.phtml. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- The FIDE rating lists are hugely helpful but frustratingly hard to use. As a site for the old FIDE rating lists I like http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/ratings/. Olimpbase is good also, and does a much better job of documenting the origin of each file. Of course from Jan 2001 on official lists can be downloaded from FIDE at https://ratings.fide.com/download.phtml, but I imagine everyone here knows that. (Scripting using wget or cURL is recommended over downloading all the old FIDE lists by hand unless you have a lot more patience for clicky-clicky-clicky than I do.) Lists since August 2012 are available in XML which I find a little more convenient to load than fixed column text, but YMMV depending on your tools. Of course the file format is no guarantee of data quality, and neither is the year. I understand 40 year old data OCRed from magazines might be a little imperfect, but
standard_jan18frl_xml.xml
has a few entries where the players have no names. This is quite a trick. For an official file distributed in 2018 I expect a higher standard.- No FIDE ID before July 1998 so it's difficult to positively identify some players across lists through the years.
- Once FIDE introduced the ID they changed the numbering at least once or twice or more, so some players have multiple ids. Worse, some of the original ids were reassigned to other players. For a time FIDE also reassigned some IDs when players changed federations. I hope they don't still do that, it's utterly moronic. Of course FIDE used to reassign IDs for some married women who changed their names, and that's even more stupid.
- Player names spellings are all over the map. Some players appear twice on the same rating list, often women under married and unmarried names. Even better, they have different ratings for the two entries for the same player.
- Some lists drop inactive players, then some months later they may reappear on a subsequent list without warning. For a time FIDE dropped hundreds of players from federations that were behind in their dues or some damn thing. They just suddenly vanish from the list. The 1974 list is missing all or almost all women. I think probably FIDE did this, but it's possible that Chess Informant performed edits before publication.
- The fields on the early lists change frequently. The only fields on every list are name, rating and federation. Titles are missing from 23 years of lists from 1975 until July 1998, absolutely tremendous.
- Birth date or even just year doesn't appear at all on any list for the 25 years from 1975 until July 1999. We do get full DOB with month and day in every list in 1971–1974 and July 1999 to July 2005 except for Jan 2000 and Jan 2001 that have no birth info. From October 2005 on only birth year is given.
- The FIDE Chess Profile pages can be used to find some info not available in the rating lists such as the year the title was awarded. The data quality here was rather sketchy although it may have improved. In 2011 I noticed that the FIDE Chess Profile for this little known fish https://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=5000017 had the wrong year for his GM title award. (He was World Champion at the time.) When I emailed the FIDE webmaster they corrected the error and sent me a pleasant reply asking me if there were any other errors in their data. I found that not at all reassuring since I have no idea what other errors they have made in their record keeping, I had hoped to rely on FIDE as a WP:RS. On the other hand, the Chess Profile provides a convenient link from which you can find a PDF of the title applications for some (but by no means all) players. This can provide info that is hard to find in other reliable sources. I think Sophia91 has used the title application documents. Quale (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- I was thinking maybe include a column for year of award for International Master title, that way we could identify the exceptional cases like Tal and Christiansen who skipped over the IM title and were awarded the GM title directly. But maybe better to walk before we run. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't find that a very compelling reason to make an already wide table wider and add the maintenance burden of an extra column that is rather uninteresting for 1800 rows just to demonstrate some trivia for a tiny fraction of the players. But there are actually quite a few GMs who were never IMs, at least 27 are listed at grandmaster. I find it curious that you think that the IM title year would be of greater interest than the birthplace, but chacun à son goût. Quale (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- this thing looks like something that should be done at wikidata level, no? so the extraction tool/script, whatever it is, written in python or javascript or whatever, should update wikidata, and then the table, as well as the info template in each GM article, could utilize standard tools to extract whichever field it wants from WD. it seems kinda waste to go through the exercise of extracting all these goodies from FIDE, and then only one page on one wiki can enjoy the results, no? maybe i'm missing something, but if i don't, please consider enriching WD and puling the data from there, instead of populating a single article on enwiki. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I think relying on wikidata is an excellent idea. I expect at some point that's what we will be doing, whether it is next week or next year. I looked at Wikidata briefly but it probably needs someone who understands it better to proceed. My main hurdle is lack of familiarity with wikidata. I have an idea of what I can do in wikipedia, but I don't have a good notion of what would be required to use wikidata. I don't know if it would be organized as a single item in wikidata (chess grandmasters) or distributed across items for each of the individual GMs. I also don't know how to set up the mechanical updates in wikidata. Other challenges include the data in the table that isn't easy or feasible to extract mechanically (convenient FIDE data give only birth year, date of death isn't in FIDE records), and it's unclear how to indicate sourcing (although we do a poor job of that now). But if someone else could spearhead such an effort I would support it wholeheartedly. I know how some of the information can be extracted from the FIDE rating lists, and a little more can be gotten by web scraping the FIDE Chess Profiles. Quale (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- I was thinking maybe include a column for year of award for International Master title, that way we could identify the exceptional cases like Tal and Christiansen who skipped over the IM title and were awarded the GM title directly. But maybe better to walk before we run. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- The FIDE rating lists are hugely helpful but frustratingly hard to use. As a site for the old FIDE rating lists I like http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/ratings/. Olimpbase is good also, and does a much better job of documenting the origin of each file. Of course from Jan 2001 on official lists can be downloaded from FIDE at https://ratings.fide.com/download.phtml, but I imagine everyone here knows that. (Scripting using wget or cURL is recommended over downloading all the old FIDE lists by hand unless you have a lot more patience for clicky-clicky-clicky than I do.) Lists since August 2012 are available in XML which I find a little more convenient to load than fixed column text, but YMMV depending on your tools. Of course the file format is no guarantee of data quality, and neither is the year. I understand 40 year old data OCRed from magazines might be a little imperfect, but
- Another online resource for old ratings is benoni.de, which includes the period from 2001, e.g. http://www.benoni.de/schach/elo/elohis.html?id=1700014&lang=en. It should be treated as unofficial, but it can be used to check the rating history of individual players and the data there can be confirmed at https://ratings.fide.com/download.phtml. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- For "older" GMs, the complete date of birth can still be found at OlimpBase, which has records of all rating lists from 1971 to 2001. Sophia91 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Quale, Sophia91, MaxBrowne2, and קיפודנחש: FYI: Above, someone mentioned Olimpbase and Benoni. These sources are fine, but they are not machine-readable. In 2018, someone made a large database with all FIDE players that have or had an Elo rating: Database. This database was the result of this scientific article that was published 2006. The creator seems to have undergone the tedious work of working out the problems of different IDs for the same player, different spellings etc. (in the scientific article he talks about these problems in detail). This database includes full names, titles, ratings, DOBs, sex, and federation. It is a Microsoft Access database and can be simply queried with SQL. I have already used it to import all Elo ratings between 1971 and 2018 to Wikidata (which led to nice Elo graphs like de:Viswanathan_Anand#Elo-Entwicklung). 147.142.162.238 (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Need help with diagram
The first diagram in Queen and pawn versus queen endgame#Queen and two pawns versus a queen is not displaying correctly. It should be White: Kh4, Qe4, Pg5, Ph6; Black: Kh8, Qd7. I can't get it right. Is it because of the new align to put two diagrams together? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- Fixed.[1] There must be two unnamed parameters before the diagram. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, it has been years since I've done diagrams, and I used to use a program I wrote to generate new ones. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- However, the captions were lost. Is the | on the right no longer needed? Is it optional? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Another editor made a change that restored the captions, but it messed up the positions of some pieces again. I reverted it for now, until someone can fix it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- I took care of it. --2601:444:380:3A90:ED8D:CA52:2C40:4B5E (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- The Lputian vs. Haroutjunian position is still incorrect. See the talk page. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah; I see what's going on now. Give me a few minutes to figure it out. <grab the really big hammer> --2601:444:380:3A90:ED8D:CA52:2C40:4B5E (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- All done. <cross fingers> --2601:444:380:3A90:ED8D:CA52:2C40:4B5E (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- It still wasn't right. My first fix inserted an unnamed parameter before the diagrams but forgot to compensate by removing an unnamed parameter after the diagram in order to position <footer> in the right unnamed parameter counted from the start. Now fixed with [2] (diff includes text edits I didn't make). PrimeHunter (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- I had to revert that because it put erroneous piece positions back into both charts. (I'm not sure what this "<footer>" thing you're referring to is, or why it matters, as nothing appears amiss to the naked eye in mainspace at this point. --2601:444:380:3A90:ED8D:CA52:2C40:4B5E (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- <footer> is the term for an unnamed parameter in the documentation of Template:Chess diagram small. I set the positions which were requested by Bubba73 and were attempted in the source at the time. I don't know whether those are actually the right positions so I will not make further changes. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- I plan to expand and clarify that section within a few days. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- IMO, it is better and easier to use the
fen=
parameter of the template, than to count dozens and dozens of pipes (i.e.,|
signs). compare{{Chess diagram small |tright |Lomonosov Tablebases | | | | | | | | | | | | | |pd|kd|qd | | | | | | | | |pl| | | | | | | | |kl| | | | |ql| | | | | | | | | |pl| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |<center>White mates in 297.</center> }}
- IMO, it is better and easier to use the
- I plan to expand and clarify that section within a few days. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- <footer> is the term for an unnamed parameter in the documentation of Template:Chess diagram small. I set the positions which were requested by Bubba73 and were attempted in the source at the time. I don't know whether those are actually the right positions so I will not make further changes. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- I had to revert that because it put erroneous piece positions back into both charts. (I'm not sure what this "<footer>" thing you're referring to is, or why it matters, as nothing appears amiss to the naked eye in mainspace at this point. --2601:444:380:3A90:ED8D:CA52:2C40:4B5E (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- It still wasn't right. My first fix inserted an unnamed parameter before the diagrams but forgot to compensate by removing an unnamed parameter after the diagram in order to position <footer> in the right unnamed parameter counted from the start. Now fixed with [2] (diff includes text edits I didn't make). PrimeHunter (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- All done. <cross fingers> --2601:444:380:3A90:ED8D:CA52:2C40:4B5E (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah; I see what's going on now. Give me a few minutes to figure it out. <grab the really big hammer> --2601:444:380:3A90:ED8D:CA52:2C40:4B5E (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- The Lputian vs. Haroutjunian position is still incorrect. See the talk page. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- I took care of it. --2601:444:380:3A90:ED8D:CA52:2C40:4B5E (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Another editor made a change that restored the captions, but it messed up the positions of some pieces again. I reverted it for now, until someone can fix it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
- with
{{Chess diagram | fen = 8/5pkq/8/P7/1K4Q1/8/P7/8 | align = tright | header = Lomonosov Tablebases | footer = <center>White mates in 297.</center> | size = 22 }}
- with
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
- the first syntax is very brittle - every small mistake in counting pipes screws it up, as this section demonstrates. the 2nd syntax uses named params, it's clear what each does, it's not sensitive to order (i.e., moving the "header" param to be first creates no problem), no confusion.
- as a side, i don't like the "center" tags of the footer. if the footer should be centered, this should be done by the template itself, and affect all footers for all diagrams. otherwise, let the footer be where all other footers are. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Opinions sought
See Talk:Glossary_of_chess - should "confirmation bias" be included in a glossary of chess terms? I could try a RFC but I prefer to keep it within wikiproject chess. I fear if I continue the discussion with User:Hollarbohem and User:Quale I will simply end up looking for arguments to back up my preconceived opinion. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think so. It is not unique to chess, chess-like games, or even games in general. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. But I will take this to the Glossary talk page. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
anon editor removing referenced material and added un-referenced material
At King and pawn versus king endgame an anonomous editor removing referenced material and added un-referenced material. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
An editor wants to give equal validity to a fringe theory that chess originated from ludus latrunculorum despite complete lack of evidence. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)