Talk:Microchess

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 08:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

I would propose this article be linked to a new heading minimalism in chess programming at Minimalism_(computing). Oldsalo (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 February 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microchess → Microchess (software) – Microchess as a chess variant is mentioned in several books, including the Oxford History of Board Games, The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, and others. There's no real reason that just because the sources are offline, an actual type of chess should be supplanted entirely by a software program of the same name. As not all versions of it are actually video games, I used (software) as the disambiguation instead, but am open to alternate ones. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as unneeded preemptive disambiguation. If there's ever a separate article on microchess-the-variant as distinct from Minichess (which is already linked in the hatnote), we can reassess. Until that article exists, the point is moot - disambiguation on Wikipedia is about distinguishing between Wikipedia articles, not every possible sense of the word. (See: Twice, etc.) Unless you want to argue that the primary meaning of Microchess is Minichess, Microchess should redirect to Minichess, and Minichess is what should have the hatnote? Based on the current Minichess article, that doesn't seem likely ("Microchess" is mentioned in one sentence, with a reference to one page of one book), but that would have to be the claim. SnowFire (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SnowFire: You stated that "until that article exists, the point is moot". However, lack of a separate article doesn't preclude disambiguation, see WP:DABMENTION. Microchess is indeed mentioned in the minichess article.
    My argument is simply WP:NOPRIMARY. Right now, the Microchess program is positioned as the primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Disambiguation is about distinguishing between Wikipedia articles, not about anointing one as the "primary". DABMENTION is part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages, which is about dab pages, not article name disambiguation. Regardless, microchess is one specific type of minichess game, and "it's in books" is not sufficient evidence for me that it's the primary use of the word. Microchess is in books too, see the sources of this article, and while you attempted to preempt it, it's also the main (or at least similarly main) result for online searches. I'm open to being wrong here, but I don't see strong evidence. --PresN 21:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Justified primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Remsense诉 19:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Microchess/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Remsense (talk · contribs) 08:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review[edit]

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
Pass Pass Alright, sorry about that! I enjoyed this one, I love chess and computers and computers, it's always nice when an article reveals an important corner you never looked at before. Main sourcing is smallish but that's to be expected—seems good to go after my spurious copyedits.

Discussion[edit]

  • @PresN: do you think it would be worthwhile to specify timestamps for each inline citation of Peter Jennings's oral history? (I'm planning on listening to the whole thing anyway, it seems very interesting.) Remsense诉 01:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense: Yes, and now it's done - a nearly two-hour interview is a bit much to leave without timestamps, I suppose. --PresN 02:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad! I had meant to do it during my listening tonight. Remsense诉 02:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microchess&oldid=1209634492"