Talk:Boris Gelfand

chronological order in tables
The tables need to be in correct chronological order, not backwards. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Good source
Here is a good source of early life and rise of Gelfand - http://moscow2012.fide.com/en/presentation/26-gelfand -Abhishikt (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation Style
Hi. I am curious as to why have you removed some of the citation templates be used to cite sources as you did for "Aronian and Gelfand win Alekhine Memorial 2013", "July 2013 FIDE Rating List: Caruana and Gelfand with Personal Records; Kramnik Out of Top Three" and the "Ynet.co.il" citation regarding FC Barcelona with. The use of citation templates is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia, and can actually help to prevent problems with link rot. Per WP:CS, "Adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates, or removing citation templates from an article that uses them consistently" and per WP:CITECONSENSUS, "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged: an article should not be switched between templated and non-templated citations without good reason and consensus". Your first edit to "Boris Gefland" seems to have been and citation templates were being used on 9 of the 14 sources cited at that time which seems to establish the "consistency" referred to above.

Although I personally find templates easier to use, my understanding of "WP:CITEVAR" is that we are the ones who should try to adjust whenever we add new citations, deferring to the style used by those who have edited before us, unless there is a really good reason for not doing so. If you have a good reason for dropping the templates or changing other things about the citation style that was being used, then please discuss it here so that others can comment and a consensus can be achieved either way. Thanks in advance, - Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I didnt look up the guideline as I didnt think it would matter, being a relatively minor issue and ultimately a matter of style. Jkmaskell (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but minor is subjective and in this case changing citation styles would not be considered a minor edit according to WP:CITEVAR. So, in my opinion, it's best to at least discuss such an edit first or at the very least post on Talk explaining your reasoning behind the edit. Moreover, there should be no stylistic differences at all because the style you're using can be easily worded to match that of a citation template; the reverse, however, is a lot harder to do. You can also easily add any of the parameters (e.g., "access date", "date", "publisher", etc.) you'll find in a template to the style you're using as well; the template just formats everything automatically for you.
 * For example, (1) and (2) will look the same because (2) is formatted accordingly to maintain consistency in wording.
 * From June 2013, Gelfand won the Tal Memorial beating Alexander Morozevich, Fabiano Caruana and Hikaru Nakamura, scoring 6/9, half a point ahead of Magnus Carlsen.
 * From June 2013, Gelfand won the Tal Memorial beating Alexander Morozevich, Fabiano Caruana and Hikaru Nakamura, scoring 6/9, half a point ahead of Magnus Carlsen.


 * Therefore, there was no real need to remove the templates, stylistically or otherwise. Doing so may have been bold, but it was not really an improvement. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jkmaskell:  Let me propose something here that should eliminate any issues over whether sources are added using citation templates or the style you use. Both style are acceptable, and can be made to look the same, so all we have to do is ensure that the wording is consistent. Let me use the Eli Shvidler citation in the lead as an example to show what I mean. Right now it is formatted like this:. This reference appears as follows:
 * Proposal


 * Not sure where the "published" date came from, but it seems to be wrong. The cited article is date 30 May 2012.

The same citation would be formatted like this when a citation template is used:. Using the citation template makes the reference appear as follows:

If you compare the two, you'll see they are slightly different in style and wording. However, we can make the wording consistent between the two by simply tweaking the format of the non-templated citation like this:. This looks as follows:

which is exactly the same as the template version, only without the template.

This can be done to all the non-templated citation and would make the citation style/wording consistent throughout. There's a bit of cleanup at first, but once its done, all that would be needed is touching up of new references which are added incorrectly. A hidden message could even be added to to the article to direct editors to refer to this talk page when adding new references. If the formatting is clearly spelled out, most editors will follow it without question. A example citation could be written to cover pretty much every possible case (e.g., "date or no date", "author or no author", etc.). What do you think? - Marchjuly (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Dead links, foreign language links, and "RusBase"
I found a couple of dead links in the article. These shouldn't be removed, but marked by deadlink templates if no archived versions of them can be found per WP:DEADREF. Here are the ones I have found.
 * (reference 1)
 * (reference 38)

Also, there are a few foreign language links. Something should probably added to the citation mentioning that this so that readers know the link is not to an English site. It also might be a good idea to add an English translation to the citation per WP:NOENG for those if possible.

Finally, there are lots of citation to "RusBase" like here. This site appears to be user generated so it's hard to know how reliable it is. However, the most worrisome thing is, in my opinion, the weird pop up (in Russian) that appears on the "RusBase" pages. Not sure if it's an advertisement or something else, but clicking on it does not make it go away. Is this safe? - Marchjuly (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The two deadlinks were there before I started work on this article. As for the foreign language links, number 32 is English language, that's merely the title the author gave it (an idle US blog which commented frequently on current chess events). Number 39 is an English language version of a Russian site (there before I started work) which is accurate but I can find another source to replace it. Number 42 is a Hebrew language article (there before I began work). Given the subject is the 2012 WC match, it shouldn't be hard to find a substitute reference.
 * On the RusBase links, it's an English language site full of tournament info from USSR chess tournaments, but certainly the cross tables there seem to match other information (chessmetrics/chessgames/Gelfand's autobiography) and on this article. I accept its not the best quality (if it had Russian Chess Federation support that'd be great!), but there may not be many alternative sources. The pop-ups can be removed if you click the (CLOSE X) tab on the left hand side (clearly came part and parcel with the site). I take your point though. Jkmaskell (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking into all of that. No big deal about the dead links. If archived versions can be found, then adding them is pretty straightforward. If not, then the links still have value so they just need to be marked with a "deadlink" template. I'll look for archived links when I get the chance. FWIW, links go dead all the time, so nobody's at fault; It just happens sometimes. Regarding the non-English links, again this is fairly easy to fix. If the sources are reliable, but in a different language, then just add "(in Hebrew)" or whatever language it is to the citation between the source name and the publisher. No need to delete unless they don't support what they are supposed to support. finally, as long as the pop up is not any kind of malware or something then it should be fine, but I can't close it when I click on the "X". Instead it opens another window on my computer and takes me to what looks like an ad site (http@browsers.ucoz.ru). This could just be my setup, but if it isn't then it might be problematic and not acceptable for Wikipedia. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the "Ynet link" . I just tweaked it a little to make in more consistent with the citation style being used by the other references. Did you translate it yourself or use a search engine? Sometimes it's a good idea to leave the original title in and then enclose the translation in brackets ("[...]") just in case of a translation error. Not necessary though if you're using some kind of official translation provided by the source. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boris Gelfand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120531020848/http://moscow2012.fide.com/ to http://moscow2012.fide.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

9 or 11 points?
On the section Career after Moscow, paragraph 3 - it is written in one of the middle lines: “He gained 11.9 rating points” - I don’t understand this meaning. What does it mean? I think there is a printing mistake. Can someone explain what was it’s original meaning and correct this line in this entry in Wikipedia? Ram Zaltsman (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)