Talk:Chess problem terminology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Chess Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-Importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Old talk

I have reinstated what Dsreyn called in an edit summary "overlinking". I know that usually we only make a link the first time a term appears in an article, but in a glossary such as this, that approach isn't best, because it isn't the sort of article you read through from start to finish. If somebody comes here to look up a specific term (as they likely will), it's probable that they will only read that single glossary entry, and won't think of skimming backwards through the article to see if terms contained in that entry have been linked elsewhere. I think it makes sense, therefore, to link much more liberally than usual; the restriction should be to link the first term in each glossary entry, rather than the first term in the entire article. --Camembert 15:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm new here, so not certain how to use all these talk, edit, discuss, features. So this is the only place I could find to post for discussig the change I made and that you deleted and then I changed and made again that you apparently moved and altered it. Let me know if there's a simpler way to have this discussion or pvt message me (I don't even see where that is done, I'll have to read up on the help files.) In any case, the reason for me change should be clear. You might not know and there may not be an alternative word, but the one listed is a racist phrase and there's nothing wrong with stating that it as so. The context does not change that fact. That some people find it offensive in any context is real. This isn't some "political correctness" campaign; it's an objective discription of reactions to hearing that phrase (at least in some quarters of the United States). Dictionaries frequently to do so for racist or derogatory language that are still in use.

First, welcome to the Wikipedia. Changes to articles should be discussed on that article's talk page (which is where you land when you click the "discussion" link) so you've found the right place here.

The reason I expressed misgivings about the usage note being included in this article is not that I disagree with what it says; it's simply that it has nothing to do with chess problem terminology, the subject of this article. This article does link to the one on the word pickaninny itself, which seems to me a more appropriate place to deal with these things. But as I say, I'm not inclined to argue about it; if you really feel the note is important, it's fine by me. Only please don't delete the entry again; I agree that it's unfortunate, but the word is used in this technical way in this context, and that ought to be noted here. --Camembert 18:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.

The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 09:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that this was already more than a dictionary definition. If the content can find a home on Wiktionary as well, then fair enough, but I don't see why it should be removed from the Wikipedia; quite a few articles here refer to it, and I would think that it's a useful read for people new to problems and confused by all the jargon. --Camembert 14:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have added a level-2 index here for better referencing and already adjusted a couple of other pages for that usage. --Wfaxon 21:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

All right, I just wanted to support this page to stay in Wikipedia as it contains quite substantial amount of explanations going beyond dictionary definitions. Indeed, I intended to write new separate pages on some subjects included here, but was amazed by very compact presentation of some topics containing everything important in very few words. Nevertheless, if time allows, I would write something... --Ruziklan 19:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)