Talk:List of chess books

Chess Low‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bibliographies Low‑importance

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Multiple editions of books[edit]

Was it the intention to list all the versions used of a particular book? For instance, with Oxford Companion, Sunnucks and Golombek, we regularly use different editions/publishers. Sometimes the differences are fairly cosmetic, whereas in other cases, there could be significant differences, corrections, material added/subtracted etc. Whatever is decided, it may need a note in the intro to inform future editors and readers. Brittle heaven (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my original intention was not to list all the versions. I intended to list maybe the first version, and the last one if the first one is out-of-print. However that brings some problems with books who have regular revisions (like MCO) because in that case there could be significant differences of content between two versions. A critical case is when an opening is judged sound in a version but dubious in a latter version. SyG (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, opening theory accuracy is always going to be a monumental task, both in terms of updating the articles themselves and also, keeping the reference material contemporaneous. For the purposes of this list though, I like your idea of using 1st Ed. and latest Ed. This way, the list shouldn't get too long, while the 1st Ed. gives the historical context and the latest Ed. the most accurate, up to date info. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article will be useful for copying and pasting book references from here to other articles. However, when I do that I try to use the most recent edition, so it will be the one available to readers (if they want to purchase it). For instance, Secrets of Pawn Endings has recently been republished, with only minor corrections. However, the ISBN has changed, and even the publisher (from Everyman to Gambit). If I'm referencing it, I prefer to use the most recent edition. Bubba73 (talk), 17:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this article aims to be useful for copying & pasting references, instead of always having to find them in another article. I like your way of giving the most recent edition. However, as Brittle heaven underlines, it loses the historical references (original year, original place, original publisher) that are encyclopedic, especially for older books. Let's imagine a book of Staunton, it is useful to access the latest edition (e.g. to purchase it) but it is also useful to know the origins of the book, no ? SyG (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is useful to know the origins of the book. Bubba73 (talk), 20:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Chess Endings, for instance, some references to it in the articles are to the 1941 edition by Fine only and most references are to the 2003 revised by Benko.

Batsford[edit]

Batsford publishing is not Batsford, but it is Anova Books. Bubba73 (talk), 02:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I have linked all of them accordingly. SyG (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emms[edit]

John Emms (chess player) lists many more books by him. Bubba73 (talk), 14:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Giddins also has five books listed. Bubba73 (talk), 04:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added both now. SyG (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Minev[edit]

Nikolay Minev has a lot of books listed that could be here. Several of them are not in English, though. Since this is the English Wikipedia, does the article list only books in English (or international, such as ECO)? Bubba73 (talk), 18:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm no, the fact that this is the English Wikipedia only means this is the Wikipedia written in the English language. I do not think there is a basis for excluding works in other languages, as long as they are notable enough. So please feel welcome to add as many books from Minev as you want. SyG (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow to load[edit]

The list of books take a very long time to load for me. Even after they were split, it takes about 35 seconds to load one of the subsections. Some other users have the same problem but others don't, see the section from the Help Desk below. Perhaps they need to be split into smaller pieces. Bubba73 (talk), 15:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another data point, FWIW: the split pages load instantly for me. 165.189.101.177 (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help Desk discussion[edit]

list of chess books won't load. Is it too large? Bubba73 (talk), 18:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It loads fine for me - anyone else having any problems? _Gb^T/c 18:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's loading now. At 134K, it's big but not overly so. Probably just a hiccup. Tan | 39 18:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still won't load for me - a full minute and nothing happens. I've had problems with large files in the past. Bubba73 (talk), 18:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI is currently at 194k or thereabouts - do you have the same issue with that page? _Gb^T/c 18:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that loaded in about 3 seconds. Bubba73 (talk), 18:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of chess books wouldn't load for me, but too many edit conflicts prevented me saying so here. Then it would load - now I'll try it again. DuncanHill (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got list of chess books to load, but it took about half a minute. Most times it would not load. It has a lot more links than AIN. Bubba73 (talk), 19:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now it loaded in 42 seconds. Bubba73 (talk), 19:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will load for me now, but it is slow. DuncanHill (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very slow for me too. Not sure what the problem is, but there are way too many wikilinks on that page. The authors' names should only be wikilinked the first time they are used, not every time: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking. – ukexpat (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one of the reasons for having the author linked each time is so that an editor can go to that page and copy that into the references of another article. Another reason why it might be slow is in the formatting all of those "cite book"s. Bubba73 (talk), 21:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It loaded very slowly for me, too. I'm sub-dividing it. I do wonder if it complies with WP:NOT, or whether it should be moved to project-space. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dividing into two parts still takes about 34 seconds to load for me. Bubba73 (talk), 01:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All parts of the divided article loaded immediately for me. Insidious backgammon cabal? --Fullobeans (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something wrong on some servers. When this type of thing was happening before, it happened to people using some servers but not others. Bubba73 (talk), 13:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About 28 seconds to load one half of the list here. 216.227.38.61 (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alert: lists of publications in Articles for deletion[edit]

Some lists of books have been added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You can find the discussions here. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]