Talk:Go (game)/Archive 10

Title
I'm not too thrilled with the fact that this article is currently located at Go (game) rather than Go (board game). I counter the argument that the latter is unnecessarily specific with one pointing out the unattractive fuzziness that comes with "game". -- Dissident (Talk) 23:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It is particularly confusing that when one enters "go" (and nothing else) in the edit box, nothing shows up. You have to enter at least "go (g" before any reference appears. The user should never have to guess what needs to be entered! "Go" (by itself) should be an entry, with disambiguation (if needed). WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That does happen already, William. If you just enter Go, it takes you to Go - the disambiguation page - where Go (game) is the second entry down. Also, to bypass the disambig. page, one can enter 'go g' - the ( is not needed. Trafford09 (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

computer Go
To the best of my understanding, the problem with writing Go software that plays at a low-kyu level is not the complexity of the evaluation tree, but rather judging the strengths and weaknesses of the players' positions. This is easily done in chess. It is not so easy in Go. This perhaps needs more discussion. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me restate this more clearly. The reason even "slow" personal computers can play chess at a high level has less to do with there being (with respect to Go) far fewer possible choices at each move, than the fact that it's easier to make positional judgments in chess. Without those judgments, the decision tree is of little use. The article needs to emphasize this. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"Go markers" in Unicode
Unicode includes four Go markers: ⚆ U+2686 white circle with dot right ⚇ U+2687 white circle with two dots ⚈ U+2688 black circle with white dot right ⚉ U+2689 black circle with two white dots What are these and where are they defined?--92.78.99.50 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I don't know the answer to your question, but you could repost it at either of:
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Go, or
 * wp:VPT
 * for a quicker answer. Trafford09 (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Query re liberties
72.214.5.135 (talk) placed a marker "[95]" after the following sentence in the article:
 * Placing stones close together helps them support each other and avoid capture; groups of stones must have at least two liberties (open points) to be "alive.".

S/he then asked:
 * "Are you sure about that? A stone or group with 1 liberty may be alive by snapback or a special seki in which the first to capture loses the resulting semeai. (also I'm not sure if this is the proper way to format this, so feel free to put this elsewhere or something)".

I've undone the IP's edits, as they should have been here in Talk, not on the article page itself.

My answer (I'm about 3-to-6 kyu) is that the article text is correct. A stone or group with just 1 liberty can always be captured. The only real exception to that, that I can think of, is in a ko fight, when the first capturer leaves a stone with one liberty, but must be given the opportunity of course to then connect up the stone, making it alive.

Trafford09 (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Trafford, your reasoning only works if we define 'alive' as meaning 'able to avoid capture, even if the other player does all he can to capture, disregarding everything else'. In practice, players do not use the term 'alive' this strictly; nor do either Japanese or American rules (I don't know about Chinese). Both the examples 72.214.5.135 gave would be recognised as 'alive' by Japanese rules, despite only having one liberty, and while American rules don't formally define 'alive' (that's left up to the players, with disputes being played out), in practice players would still refer to them as alive, since although they can be captured, there is no benefit to doing so and they will remain on the board at the end of the game.


 * Anyway, I see the offending phrase has been removed from the article, now, anyway.
 * 90.22.159.136 (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Definitions missing for links and groups
This article attempts to provide an overview of all aspects of Go. In doing so, it discusses concepts such as tactics and strategy. Go tactics and strategy cannot be understood without precise definitions for liberties, chains (strings), links, and groups. Of these fundamental related terms, only liberties and chains (strings) are defined. Links are not mentioned at all, and groups are mentioned many times but are never defined.

I would suggest that a precise definition of a group is possible (roughly: a set of strings of the same color connected by non-threatened links). Links are defined by a specific list (diagonal, single-skip, small-knight, double-skip, and large-knight).

An understanding of links and groups is only slightly more advanced than understanding stones, intersections, and strings. Such an understanding is basic to playing the game of Go. It is only slightly less advanced than an understanding of the finite list of "dead shapes", which also seem to be missing from this overview article.

It's perfectly okay for a complex topic to be presented as a related set of articles, but the Go article also attempts to stand on its own (as it should) as an overview. If this article is to be a good stand-alone overview, I would propose that it needs to define all the basics of Go necessary to play at, say, a consistent level of 28? kyu, which includes definitions for links, groups, and perhaps also the dead shapes, with a brief illustration showing how dead shapes can be collapsed to contain only one eye. Fuller explanations already exist in the referenced additional "main articles".

To those who advise 'be bold', I don't wish to do these edits myself, not having the stomach to see my work be deleted by any editor who dislikes change. Let's see if there are any good objections first. David Spector (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no point in describing the exact mechanics of the game in the main article. Rules and definitions can be provided in sub articles. --ZincBelief (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree as a general rule; I'd have thought it's better to stop the top-level article becoming overly large - thus it helps if detailed content is held in the other - lower-level - articles. Trafford09 (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is really misleading
"The object of the game is to secure (surround) a larger portion of the board than the opponent."

You win by either resignation or by having more points in the end. Surrounding a larger portion does not mean you have more points. (for example: you have less territory than your opponent but you win by komi)

"When a game concludes, the controlled spaces are counted to determine which portion is the largest, as exact territory size is not easily apparent during play."

At the end the spaces (territory) are counted along with captures in Japanese rules, komi is also counted for white. The player with more points wins. (it's different for Chinese rules) Not just controlled spaces are counted in scoring.

the "as exact territory size is not easily apparent during play" is confusing and misleading. Fafas (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing a helpful heuristic remark with a pedantic recitation of the rules. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reverted an edit from an anonymous IP which made this change because it was (IMHO, of course) useless: It changed the sentence to say "The object of the game is to have more points than the opponent when the game concludes." which is useless. You might as well say "the object of the game is to win the game." - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the fragment "(...) or capturing enough of the opponent's stones to force a resignation." is not only misleading but simply incorrect, as capturing stones has very often nothing to do with forcing a resignation. I would change it to: "(...) or achieving a superior enough position that the opponent is forced to resign out of the lack of realistic winning perspectives." 95.143.243.150 (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Image
The one thing I dont like about the mainstay top image is that the lines are hardly visible. I took a different image to see if i could get a better balance, and it shows the grid more clearly, but it fails in other areas (cheap board and stones). -161
 * The current picture seems nicer, with very visible lines, a quite good board and stones (and room), and a nice position on the board. Edhel-Dil (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Go Associations
I think the current links all add value beyond what is available on WP and are a good place to send people who may be interested in Go. There are other associations that could be linked to of course, but the current list (IGF, EGF, USGo, NHK) are, to the best of my knowledge, some of the better and more major Go Association websites.

Sensei's Library
There is no direct link to Sensei's Library. Should there be? There is a link to a list of Go Servers on Sensei's Library (SL). After reading the guidelines on external links (what not to link to) in particular:

I actually think that SL qualifies as a wiki that can be linked to. This is because it has a large user base and is, I believe, relatively stable (as far as wiki's go - occasional vandalism is considered normal right?).
 * Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.

I think it's likely that SL will always have a lot more content about Go than WP, partly because of its narrow focus and partly because it has Go diagram functionality built in, which makes it more friendly for writing about Go.

I have to admit some bias here, because I have used and edited SL over many years, though I was not a particularly active editor. I imagine some of the other editors watching this page have also been involved in SL. I'd be interested to hear your views either way.

Also, is there a project to move content over from SL onto WP? That seems to be what's happening, but I'm not sure if it was planned or not. In any case WP is a more accessible place for Go information and hopefully more people will discover Go through WP.

Go Game Guru
This is a smaller site, but it also seems to have a consistently high level of content not found elsewhere. I have seen this site popping up a lot recently. There seem to be various references added by quite a few different users in the SL recent changes, particularly from An Younggil 8p's series about top Go players (because he knows them in person I believe). I have also seen references to Go Game Guru on WP, but I can't recall where right now. Alexf suggested that this site could stay because it uses a Creative Commons licence. After reading the guidelines:

I'm not sure if that site qualifies as a blog or not. It seems to be using blogging software, but blog software for all kinds of things these days. An Younggil, who could at one time have claimed to be one of the top 10 Go players in the world, seems to meet the notability criteria for people. Another one of the contributors, David Ormerod, is a top amateur player in Australia. I don't think that makes him notable by WP standards, but still somewhat authoritative perhaps. Does anyone else have views on this?
 * Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

GoProblems.com
I've rarely used this site, the link says it's an open database of Go problems. I've heard it's quite popular. Again, since it has functionality that WP will never have, it seems to add value beyond what we have here. I'm not sure about the quality of the problems and I couldn't find any obvious information about licencing. Perhaps others who have more experience with the site could comment?

Josekipedia.com
This site isn't currently on the list. I'm not sure how long it's been around as I've only discovered it recently. It seems to be quite good and I believe it's run by the same person/people behind the goproblems.com site. It's meant to be a 'wiki' for joseki. I'm not sure how established or stable the site is, but it's interesting. The same comment about extended functionality applies here. Again, I couldn't find any information about licencing.


 * Good notes. I agree that all of the above mentioned sites deserve a listing. -SC (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd only list Senseis Library myself. There are several online Joseki Dictionaries, and I don't see a basis for just including one of these. Go Game Guru is no different to a host of other sites out there (say GoBase or 361points.com) and GoProblems.com is nice, but not really further reading material.--ZincBelief (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Terminology for shapes of go bowls
I think that the section describing go bowls and their shapes needs revision. The terms "Go Seigen" and "Kitani" as applied to the shapes of bowls are not standard and, in fact, are not used anywhere but in the USA as far as I know. These terms were coined somewhat arbitrarily by Janice Kim for marketing purposes when her online store Samarkand was in operation. In fact shapes vary widely in all countries and are not specific to China or Japan. RMcGuigan (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'd never heard those terms before reading this page and had wondered where they came from. Maybe it's not necessary to go into so much detail about the shape of bowls on this page at all? Can't we leave that to the Go equipment page? --Tudotou (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, for both reasons. Go ahead and make the change! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. RMcGuigan is correct. -- Alexf(talk) 10:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Asian characters notice
The following notice was added to the article:

Unfortunately it causes formatting problems with other boxes in the introduction, so I removed it. It may fit above the main topic box, rather than underneath them. It should be noted that now all major operating systems (including Mac and Windows) automatically add UTF-8 Asian character support, either in their installation or in their updates, so the Asian character notice may not be necessary. -SC (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Young players
'Age range 	PCs: 3+; real board: 6+ (Some professional games, especially in Japan, take more than 16 hours and are played in sessions spread over two days.)'

I know that you don't get many very young players, but why are players aged from 3-6 able to play on the computer but not over the board? The time limits for professional games don't really have any relevance, as young children aren't likely to be playing in them, and if they're able to manage a 9x9 on the computer they can manage one against a human over the board.

I would suggest removing the footnote and changing it to just 'Age range: 3+' --82.70.156.254 (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Gah, OK - the footnotes are unclear, and it actually just links to a board being sold on Amazon which recommends 6+. But the point still stands; if a child is able to manage a game on the computer, why would they not manage OTB? --82.70.156.254 (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Even better, why do we have "age range" in the infobox anyway? They're ridiculous for all games ("Darn it, my kid can't play Candyland, she's only 2!"). I suggest we remove it entirely - but certainly take away the silly computer/board distinction and that silly footnote.
 * By the way, "The Way to Go" does not have any age range at all.  - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There have been related discussions before - see Talk:Go_%28board_game%29/Archive_9.
 * The reason for the higher OTB limit is presumably for safety - that younger children may choke on the stones. Trafford09 (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization
"Go" is capitalized in this article. Is there a reason for this? I wouldn't think it's a proper noun. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right. It shouldn't be capitalized, except at the beginning of a sentence.  I'll fix it in a few days, or you can, unless someone objects. Eleuther (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm objecting. Go is customarily capitalized, both on and off Wikipedia (e.g. British Go Association), to avoid confusion with the far more common word go, as explained in Note 1.  I suggest trying to get a broad consensus on this issue before changing the capitalization. BabelStone (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed - capitalized is easier for readers and follows standard form. Don't change it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Easier for readers" is probably not a valid reason to capitalize it. "Follows standard form" probably is. If that's the case, I think that we should cite a WP:RS that states this. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Capitalised is usual for Go. I'll try to find a RS for it - not sure how easy it is to find though. I found a BBC example though.
 * I suppose that it "Follows standard form" mainly because it's "Easier for readers".
 * Capital G is also used by most contributors to the wp:WikiProject Go page and its talk page, which I think is telling, as clearly the discussion is about the game, yet custom is still mainly followed, even there.
 * Western Go websites might not be regarded as independent references here, but how about the Korean Go association (please see this sample page)? Go as you probably know is called baduk in Korea. Yet their English website pages always refer to capitalised Go. Trafford09 (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of the arguments for writing it as "Go", but they seem to me not to have that much to do with Wikipedia policy. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think in this case, the relevant policy is WP:IGNOREALLRULES. De-capitalising the word, whilst technically following the letter of WP:MOS, would make the article confusing to read, especially for those unfamiliar with the subject. Yunshui (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that an article on Wikipoodia should be readable. We've had this question before and the answer has always been the same. Stick with Go.ZincBelief (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it would be more constructive to point out (a) that a convention such as is under discussion affects every article in Category:Go (game) and should really not be casually decided on the talk page of one article; and (b) there is WP:WPGO which should undertake a proper discussion of the matter in an appropriate forum, and produce a project page giving the reasoning. These discussions take up bandwidth that is much better employed in adding actual content. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This seems like the more natural place discuss it to me --- but okay, we can move the discussion there. Eleuther (talk)!


 * I always think capitalizing the word "go" looks amateurish. The idea that readers get confused with the verb "to go" is silly. People get confused between "bow" and "bow," but that's because the two have different pronunciations. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Name of the Game
Why is is called Go? The game is traditionally a Chinese and is more popular in both China and Korea than it is in Japan. Even though the game probably introduced to the west via Japan, the name so not be go. More people use weiqi and baduk, granted these people are not English speakers but they do play the game more often and host most of the tournament in the world for this game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.251.20.48 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you are right, when you say that the reason it is called Go, in Europe & America, is that it was introduced by the contacts with the Japanese. Of course, the Japanese call it 'igo', & I guess it was easiest for Westerners to say 'Go'. Hence, we now have the British Go Association, American Go Association and European Go Federation. These are some of the bodies that perhaps most influence the choice of the name 'Go' on the English version of Wikipedia.
 * Ironically perhaps, even though the International Go Federation - to which all these and their Asian counterparts too are affiliated - has its headquarters in Tokyo, they still use the Western name of Go.
 * Maybe somebody can suggest a better reason. Hope this helps. --Trafford09 (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Chinese rules and suicide moves
There are two places in the article mentioning that suicide moves are generally forbidden, but Chinese rules allow them. It's not true. There are some rulesets which allow suicide moves (e.g. Ing rules, New Zealand rules), but Chinese is not one of them. See http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/c2002.pdf, diagram 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dresu87 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ corrected Xavier Combelle (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea if I am doing this correctly. I just wanted to note that the description of Territory Scoring in this article differs from the description given in the Wikipedia article "Rules of Go". In this article it states that the score is the number of surrounded spaces PLUS the number of the enemies pieces captured. In "Rules of Go" it states that the Territory Score is the number of surrounded spaces MINUS the number of one's own pieces captured. These obviously do not yield the same result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.223.71.1 (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Notation
I have added four characters from Unicode, e.g. . I did so because the Unicode chart puts them under the header "Go markers". Is it true that these symbols are used for notation somehow? -DePiep (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * They are often used (outside WP at least) to denote the last move played in a given game position. Trafford09 (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, so they can stay. Maybe someone can add a description of this usage. -DePiep (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Nature of the game - alpha-beta pruning
In the section Nature of the game, there is a diagram that explains alpha-beta pruning of a tree. But since the advent of MC/UCT go-laying programs, no program uses alpha-beta pruning. Indeed, I doubt they ever did, the lack of fast evaluation heuristics makes the method unsuitable. So I suggest deleting this diagram. Maproom (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Kubrick wanted go instead?!
The statements in the article re Stanely Kubrick wanting go, but ending up with chess, in 2001, makes me incredulous. Kubrick was so highly respected, and given so much money and time to complete the film, what he wanted, he got. Is there anything to source this suggestion about what he really wanted? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point - this IBM site (http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/learn/html/e.8.1.html) says the computer was actually going to play Pentominoes, but Kubrick switched it to chess because nobody knew the other game. I have removed the sentence. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank u for the research and change. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The article lacks in verifiable references, contains much original research

 * (Title put into sentence case, as per MOS:HEAD, by Trafford09 (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC))

It is unfortunate that an article on a topic that is so dear to many is not up to Wikipedia standards. The opening section is full of statements that are not verifiable because they are not referenced. It also contains statements that may never be verifiable because they seem to reflect the author's opinion or experience, hence constitute original research, which does not belong on Wikipedia.

Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It must retain a neutral, fact-based tone. You may love the game greatly, but Wikipedia is not the right place to extol it not it is the place to provide "how to" advice.

Let's work together to improve the quality of this important entry.

TippTopp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC).


 * Generally speaking, lead sections don't require citations (see WP:LEDE), because they summarise the content of the rest of the article (which should be supported with references). The lede is a bit on the long side - I'd like to see the third paragraph done away with, for example - but there's nothing in there that I can see which isn't expanded upon and referenced later in the article. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 14:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that TippTopp added a tag: "Go originated in ancient China; exactly when is unknown ". This makes me wonder whether he is really trying to improve the article, or just having a joke. Maproom (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * TippTopp is right in some ways IMHO - if only that the article is dear to many, and an important entry. I guess that's why it says at the top of this page that "Go (game) is a former featured article.". So it's hopefully not that far off WP standards as it stands. Trafford09 (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Move infobox Chinese
I suggest moving infobox Chinese/Tibetan/Korean/Japanese down to history section. Its taking up too much room at the top. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In the past editors and IPs would frequently add the Chinese, Japanese or Korean names into the lede, making it cluttered and hard to read, so the box is a way to provide the linguistic information without disturbing the text. If the box was moved down to the history section, where it does not belong anyway, then casual readers would start adding the Chinese, Japanese or Korean names back into the lede, so I think it is best to leave the box where it is.  Moreover, (for me at least) the box is placed to the side of the very large table of contents, so it does not take up too much room or interfere with the text of the article -- though I guess if your preferences are set to not show tables of contents it would interfere with the article layout, but that is not the default setting or how unregistered readers would see it. BabelStone (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I don't see a problem with adding the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean names to the first line, as well as the definition "surround game," as that is common practice in many other articles dealing with foreign concepts. It sometimes gets cluttered, I agree, but its possible to do it in a way which is not cluttered. I will make such an edit to the article just as a demonstration, and we can talk about it here. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ive gone ahead and added the Hanzi/Kanji/Hangul characters, and moved the infobox Chinese down to the history section. This edit can be undone of course. Tell me what you think. -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

FA?
I'll add a few more citations to the intro and overview sections in a few days (I loaned out a book), and maybe after some polishing we can submit this to FA. -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Cultural References
In the film Sanjuro, the heroes lack of sophistication is demonstrated by the fact that he sits on a go board as if it were a stool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.249 (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitalizing white and black
I don't know where this style choice came from, but I'm disinclined to keep it as is. -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As it was today, there was no consistent capitalisation of "black and white". I have changed it throughout (I may have missed a few cases) to use the style followed by some publishers of English-langage works on Go: where these words are nouns designating players, they are capitalised; where they are adjectives indicating the ownership of stones, groups, etc., they are not capitalised. Maproom (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this requires some discussion. Like I said above, I'm disinclined to use capitals because I think its inconsistent with the way other articles are written. I'm willing to accept that Go itself be capitalized, and I think consensus supports this, but not black and white, as they are just too common, and they aren't ambiguous with anything else. -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong view on what style should be used, I just applied the one I am used to. I think there is something to be said for using "White" to denote a player and "white" to describe a stone – but if you prefer to use "white" throughout, I shan't argue. However I do value consistency, which was lacking before I made my recent edits. Maproom (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree these should be consistent. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In the article contract bridge I see it says "North and South play against East and West". I think that capitalising what are in effect proper nouns is normal. Maybe I'll get round to looking at more articles which might provide a guide. Maproom (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I find it distracting, and often seemingly inconsistent. The idea of using White and Black as names gets interspersed with using white and black as a nominal description of stone color. Its more natural just to use lowercase and let the language faculty of the reader discern what is meant by white and black. -Stevertigo (t | c) 00:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The style used in the article should match convention and not reflect the personal preference of individual editors. I strongly advocate Maproom's recommendation.   For players, as in "if Black plays at..." it should be capitalized.  For adjectives, as in "the black pieces", it should not be capitalized.  The [Online Free Dictionary] differentiates between a. "a  or dark-coloured piece or square" and b. " the player playing with such pieces".  There is also a strong precedent in other Go publications. For example: [|Sensei's Libary:Rules of Go] starts with a section on Players: "The game is played by two players. We call them  and ."  And [here's] a great example showing both lower case and upper case used properly in the same sentence:  "The stones played in Dia. 5 are shown here just as  and  stones, and the next moves are shown as  1 and  2."  Finally this is consistent with the way Chess is handled in Wikipedia and elsewhere.  For instance, see the article on White and Black in chess. For the record, I didn't cherry pick examples off the internet.  If you research common usage in books, periodicals and web sites on Go, you will see this is just about standard usage. I recommend standardization using this approach to capitalization, and I'm will to make the changes if necessary. Coastside (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's the same style in chess - in fact, there's a whole article about it (sort of): White and Black in chess. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Its more natural to just let the language faculty of the reader do the discerning. For example on KGS we typically just refer to white as w and black as b, both in lowercase. There's no ambiguity issue to solve, so why use capitals? Besides, using capitals goes against Wikipedia's conventions, to not unnecessarily capitalize words. -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Saying something is "more natural" is subjective. KGS isn't a good reference point. It's a question of being consistent with the majority of published sources on Go. KGS is in the minority in terms of usage. Regarding Wikipedia's style guide for capitalization, it clearly says "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." (see WP:MOSCAPS) My argument is that capitalization of the players is necessary because White and Black are proper names that are consistently capitalized in sources.  As for whether you can consider White and Black as, Wikipedia says, "The detailed definition of the term is problematic and to an extent ."  And again in the section on English usage Wikipedia says "Which items are capitalized may be merely ." That's my point - as editors we should be following convention, which is set by other sources on Go. Books about Go (and other games, such as chess for that matter) conventionally treat the players White and Black as proper names whereas the colors of the stones are simple adjectives.Coastside (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever looked at some of our medical articles? Typically such articles will be written by people with some knowledge of the subject, but these articles will still need editors to come in and wikify them. One of the common issues with medical articles is that they will contain terms which are capitalized, and unnecessarily so, according to our conventions. For example I just saw a link to "Benign Brain Tumor," which doesn't need to be capitalized, its just done so sometimes in medical contexts to draw attention to the concept. We don't need to draw such attention to such concepts, so we use lowercase terms, and where we find overusage of capitals, we change them to lowercase. If we find article titles that use capitals, we change those titles to lowercase. So even though there are conventional ways of doing things in other contexts, Wikipedia doesn't adopt every convention there is - there's just no need to, and it makes for ugly formatting. - So compare your above statement to my example with regard to the medical context - should we use capitals in medical articles just because its "following" the "convention" found in medical texts? -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Capitalization erros are common throughout written English, but that doesn't mean we need to introduce them here. There's really no question: Common nouns are capitalized when used to represent a player in a game (White, Black, East, West ...). It's a clear, consistent usage with a long tradition, one that's understood by readers. Well, most readers. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for expressing your support. I'd like to drive for a concensus!
 * No, we shouldn't capitalize in medical articles "just because it's following convention." On the contrary, it's correct to capitalize "Benign Brain Tumor" because the usual convention in medical journals is to capitalize disease names only when they are named after someone, in which case the person's name is capitalized.  For example, one should capitalize "Hodgkin’s disease" and "Down's syndrome" but not "cancer". This rule is not always followed, as you indicated, but it  an established convention. The Mayfield Handbook of Technical Scientific Writing states this rule succinctly: "Do not capitalize medical terms except for any part of a term consisting of a proper noun". If you search for "cancer" on the web, you will see that  it is not capitalized in the middle of a sentence unless it's part of the name of a research center or another proper name, e.g., the "Institute of Cancer Research."  However, if you search for "Down's syndrome" you will see it is almost always capitalized.  Note that formatting of scientific names of organisms (as opposed to diseases) is explicitly defined in Wikipedia. Again, for board games, capitalization of White and Black as player names is a consistent convention that we should follow. Wikipedia follows this convention for Chess, e.g., "The pieces are divided, by convention, into  and  sets. The players are referred to as  and  and for Checkers, e.g., "Traditionally the pieces are either, , or " and "The result is often abbreviated as  ( wins) or  ( wins)".Coastside (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * - Im not talking about capitalizing proper names or diseases named after someone, I'm talking about the usage of capitals to give emphasis or distinction to something like a disease or a medical procedure, when the term is not named after a person. Its a convention found in medical literature, and sometimes in other fields in the sciences, but its something that we do not copy here because we don't see a purpose in it. Do you still think that Wikipedia should be influenced by the varied conventions found in fields like medicine? -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In the line you quoted the emphasis should have been on the word . I know you were talking about the usage of capitals to give emphasis (as opposed to capitalizing proper names), and I agree we shouldn't imitate such examples by capitalizing medical terms like Benign Brain Tumor. Where we disagree is I'm saying capitalizing general medical terms is the "convention found in medical literature". The convention, as I tried hard to explain, is  to capitalize medical terms  they are proper names.  You're arguing that formatting of medical terms in Wikipedia is an example where we don't follow convention.  I was trying to counter that argument by explaining that it is just the opposite. We are correct  to capitalize medical terms in Wikipedia precisely because by doing so we are in fact properly following established convention. Put another way, I'm saying your example is not a good one.  On the contrary, it is an example of a violation of convention done because the author wants to emphasize a particular term, something I would say is stylistically vulgar.  In cases such as the one you found where Benign Brain Tumor was capitalized, as you said, "it's just done so  in medical contexts to draw attention to the concept. [emphasis added]"  This is exactly a case when we should  blindly imitate the source material. However, it isn't a good example of a convention if something is "just done so sometimes." A convention is an established practice or norm.  So we both agree that Benign Brain Tumor should not be capitalized.  I'm arguing that we should follow convention for both medical terms  for players names when writing about board games. Coastside (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ive seen this kind of capitalization done as long as Ive been editing here, so it appeared to be a conventional form of some kind. The fact that its not actually a convention doesn't help your argument, because contributors for years have made such a practice a part of their editing, particularly in medicine, and to a lesser extent in the physical sciences. Its been a kind of de-facto convention. Now, I have never seen a case where anyone has defended such a usage of capitals - typically its been understood that Wikipedia's conventions supercede those of outside texts.
 * Seems that you are arguing is that we accept a foreign convention, one which is particular to this topic, or at least common with chess, even though the MOS might disagree. Im not clear exactly on what the MOS says on the issue. Of course there is an argument in your favor, the fact that we often capitalize the name "Go" itself, but this was not always the case, and took a while for Wikipedia to adopt it. I agree with capitalizing "Go" because it makes some sense to. I have yet to see the sense in capitalizing "white" and "black," because there's little or no issue of ambiguity, as there is with "Go." Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not arguing we should "adopt a foreign convention that is particular to this topic...even though the MOS might disagree." As I explained above, the MOS is clear that proper nouns should be capitalized and that "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." I'm arguing 1) that White and Black when used as player names should be capitalized because they are proper nouns, which is consistent with the MOS and 2) we can rely on source materials on the topic to guide us as to what should be treated as a proper name and therefore capitalized. Although avoiding ambiguity is a general goal, nowhere in the MOS does it say we should capitalize letters to avoid ambiguity. I don't know why you think that should be the criterion to apply for capitalization when there are clear guidelines that we should be following.Coastside (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We disagree that black and white are proper nouns. I regard them as unambiguous colors which simply represent the particular sides in a dualistic enterprise. We also seem to disagree with regard to the purpose of capitalization - I assert that capitalization should have a purpose, in particular it should help resolve some ambiguity. You seem to think we should simply follow outside convention regardless of purpose. I suggest you raise this issue at Manual of Style/Capital letters, and see if there can be something written into the MOS which deals with this issue, both with regard to chess and Go. It should also be noted that "Go" itself is capitalized per a notable exception to the lowercase rule. Let me know when you get started, I will join the debate there. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 09:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In the phrase "the mother of my friend", the word "mother" is lower case, whereas in the phrase "when Mother plays chess", the word "Mother" is capitalized because it's a proper noun. Similarly, in the phrase "the white player", the word "white" is lower case, and in the phrase "when White played at D7", the word "White" is capitalized because its a proper noun. But more important than either of our opinions is how the source texts treat the matter, and it's clear the source texts on chess, checkers and Go all capitalize the players names. I'm eager to have additional input from others in this discussion. I had already solicited input by posting a request for input on the Wikiproject Go talk page. As per your suggestion, I added an additional request for input on the MOS:Capital letters talk page.  Since chess and checkers already follow established convention in capitalizing Black and White, this discussion is only relevant to the Go (game) article, so it makes more sense to invite other editors to join the discussion here than to move it to a general MOS talk page.  However, if you prefer, I'm willing to move this discussion to the Wikiproject Go talk page, if you think that would help broaden the conversation. Coastside (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I requested a third opinion as currently this appears to be a debate between only two editors, Coastside and Stevertigo. If we can broaden this dicussion I will delete the request for a third opinion.

For reference the convention for chess in Wikipedia is stated clearly in the WikiProject chess page. Coastside (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As I have stated a couple times, the current style (capitalize White and Black when referring to players, lower-case when referring to colors as in "the white pieces") is correct, is well-established consensus within and outside of wikipedia, and should be maintained. This one is, to use an overworn phrase, a no-brainer; I almost suspect a troll ... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. Although I usually don't like extraneous capitalization (Capitalizing Every Word In A Sentence Is One Of The Things I Really Hate About The Internet), this is a special case.  My first instinct when I read about this dispute was, "Well, what does chess do?" The article Chess (as others have pointed out already) does what Coatside suggests here: capitalized when a noun that refers to the player and lowercase when an adjective that describes a piece.  White and Black in chess is another pretty conspicuous example.  Bridge (my favorite card game, yay!) does the same with North, South East and West (and indeed, I have never seen the terms in lowercase when they're used in bridge, even outside of Wikipedia).  So, there's certainly a precedent for it, both inside and outside of Wikipedia.
 * Now, jsut because there's a precedent doesn't mean we have to follow it, but in this case, there's a good reason for doing so: it helps differentiate the players from the pieces. Sure, it's not necessary; I'm sure readers will be able to figure it out whether we distinguish it through capitalization or not.  But I don't see any reason why we wouldn't help out the reader; it's not gonna *hurt* anything.  So yeah, I'd say let's capitalize Black and White when they're nouns referring to the players. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the 3O board? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I usually wikilink it, but forgot this time: it's the third opinion noticeboard, where Coastside placed a request. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree (for chess) White & Black referring to players s/b cap'd. But once you commit to that (for Go), don't make the mistake of assuming it's all cut & dried. When (in chess) clearly referring to players or pieces, it's easy. But when referring to things not clearly one of those, it can be confusing. For example, should White/Black or white/black be used (in chess) when referring to "sides"? Or to "moves"? Or to "position", "center", "king's wing/queen's wing", "setup/configuration/structure", "castle position", "combination", "attack/defense", "fork/pin/trap/shot/sacrifice", "strategy/plan/idea", "advantage/edge/initiative", and so on? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said: capitalize Black and White when they're being used as (metonymic) nouns, and don't when they're being used as adjectives otherwise. With common sense, I don't see why it shouldn't be as cut-and-dried as that. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So what about this one?: "The best White/white idea in the position was ...". Or this?: "After the White/white sacrifice, the Black/black structure began to crumble." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They're not nouns, so lowercase. If you want to capitalize them, then you could reword them as "White's best idea..." and "After White's sacrifice, Black's structure..." I know what you mean that one would want to capitalize those adjectives, but my thought is that, if you do want to capitalize White and Black, you want them to be a possessive noun instead of an adjective anyway, so just make it so. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Writ Keeper, of course they can be rewritten to refer explicitly to players, but oftentimes players don't speak or write that way. The question isn't if an editor "wants to capitalize them", for example I neither "want" or "don't want" to. The question is whether those examples should use caps or not. (So, you are proposing the first example should be: "The best white idea in the position was ...". And you are proposing the second example should be: "After the white sacrifice, the black structure began to crumble." I wonder if other editors agree with your proposed forms!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In any case, so what? It might be possible to dream up a weird scenario where capitalization is unclear, but usage is quite clear in 99.9% of the cases. (Unlike many things about Go, at least the way I play it.) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And this is all a bit out of scope; we're not suggesting a new MoS rule codifying this. This is just for what works for this page. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't dreaming up anything. These are types of cases which have cropped up in chess articles on occasion. Your "Usage is quite clear in 99.9% of the cases" is based on what? That seems like your pure guess, or wishful thinking. It isn't a fact, because no such statistics exist. "So what?" Gosh, I really don't know how to reply to that. I guess I thought a little look forward, for planning purposes and consistency, might be a good thing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Does it matter if others agree with my so-called rule? I'm not talking about chess. Like I said, I am *not* trying to write the MoS on this.  And if they disagree, then I'm sure they'll just capitalize it and the world will keep on turning; the MoS is just a guideline anyway.  The dispute I was asked to give an opinion on was whether "Black" and "White" should be capitalized anywhere on the Go page, and I replied that I think they should.  That was the extent of my (hypothetical) "authority," the rest was purely my musings on the subject.  You're taking this far too seriously. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Writ Keeper, I was simply responding to your idea. I did not create the thread here, I was simply contributing to it. The fact that "players or pieces" was being bandied about, as though that is always an easy distinction for cap'ing or not, was something I wished to draw attention to, that that idea, might be an oversimplification. I'm not challenging or attemting to argue with you, or get you to write a MoS, or trying to make you defend anything. I was simply adding an idea to the thread, which contained ideas, yours and others'. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. I guess the "!?" in your post above made it seem like you were being a little more strident in your replies than you meant; no worries.  Good ol' text interfaces. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I used "!?" as in chess notation (= "interesting"). Go isn't my game anyway, but conventions re chess were brought up. Now that I've muddied the waters, I'm interested to see how Coastside will process. (He's driven to solution here, but I don't think it's "black & white" [pun intended]. And since it isn't always clear in chess articles, who says the Go solution for this can't spillover to help when the chess applications aren't clear? [So my interest was/is chess, really.]) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Back to IHardlythinkso's question, "I wonder if other editors agree with your proposed forms!?", my answer is yes, I agree with Writ_Keeper on this. Go sources are fairly consistent on the treatment of capitalization, and it's not a hard rule to apply. Regarding specific corner cases [pun intended], such as "The best white idea in this position is ...", yes that should be lower case. And I agree with Writ_Keeper that it would be better rewritten as "The best idea for White in this position is". What's a "white idea" anyway? Coastside (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A "white idea" is an idea for the white/White side (i.e., for the white/White player, in the position). Again, it can be rewritten, but oftentimes players speak or write that way. What about "The white/White attack was building."? "The white/White advantage in the position was clear."? "The best white/White strategy was to go for the endgame."? "The white/White center needed reinforcement."? "The best white/White move in the position was ..."? (All smalls? It isn't clear in the chess articles, despite White and Black in chess article.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * These aren't even different examples. They are the same examples (and the same examples as you posted previously), just with different words. Again, it's an easy rule to apply - your examples are all lower case: "The white attack...", "The white advantage...", "The best white strategy...", "The white center...", "The best white move...". And they could all be rewritten (no they don't have to be rewritten, but they could be rewritten) with capitals, if the word "white" is used as a metonym for the player, as in "The best strategy for White..." and "The best move for White..." Here's another example: "a losing white/White position".  If you give it a little bit of thought, I'm sure you can apply the rule to determine whether it should be capitalized.  And if you give it a bit more thought you can rewrite it (no you wouldn't have to rewrite, but you could rewrite it) with a capitalized, metonymic "White". Coastside (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Coastside, the issue isn't a "lack of thought" on my part, the issue is that there has been no convention or standard understood or agreed for chess articles (for e.g. see discussion here). And so no consistent solution applied, either. If the lowercase solution for the examples is adopted for Go articles, it would amount to a new (refined) convention for chess articles if similarly adopted over there. (And that's my interest, for chess articles, thinking the two should probably remain consistent. It'd be nice to be able to refer to discussion here, when time comes to refine the capitalization convention at ProjChess. [Which will probably occur sometime "in the year 2525, if Man is still alive".]) Go for it! (Pun intended.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You aren't being consistent. You just said "there has been no convention or standard understood or agreed for chess articles". And yet on the MOS talk page you said, twice that "There is a ProjChess convention 'White/Black' refer to players; 'white/black' refer to pieces". I'm going to assume you agree with the convention W/B for players and w/b for pieces, and that you were making an overstatement above. I'd be happy to apply that same convention to Go, if I could get a consensus.  Regarding other cases, it is understandably more complicated in chess, where the pieces have names, such as "Bishop".  That's not the case in Go.  The pieces ("stones") don't have names, Furthermore, Go sources are all consistent in their treatment of capitalization.  The problem in this thread was not in recognizing the convention used in Go source material, but that Stevertigo didn't think it appropriate to adopt these conventions in Wikipedia articles on Go. Let me ask you this: if for argument sake, source texts on Go were in fact reasonably consistent in their treatment of capitalization of white/black, would you agree it makes sense to follow the same conventions in Wikipedia articles on the topic? Coastside (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, ProjChess convention is simple rule: caps in ref to players; smalls in ref to pieces. My contribution here was to point out that rule hasn't been sufficient for chess articles where refs don't clearly fall in either camp (examples "moves", "positions", "sides", "strategies", "advantages", etc.). Whether to cap in those cases has been at best individual judgement and/or guesswork resulting in inconsistencies of course. If a clear convention is agreed for Go, it seems chess articles can only benefit from the same solution replicated, and ProjChess would have basis to refine their convention.


 * I understand the discussion here and Stevertigo's take, and its all very interesting. But I really don't know re the Q you asked – it seems could go either way, but it's over my head since am unfamiliar w/ WP philosophy which might govern such selection. So I'll stay out of the debate and just cheer for consistency (between Go & chess articles). Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC) p.s. Piece names in chess articles are always smalls (not cap'd) by ProjChess convention. (Some sources cap them, some do not.) FYI, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have edited the article to use "Black" and "White" for the players, and "black" and "white" for stones, groups, etc. It had been inconsistent for the players, and "black" and "white" for stones, groups, etc. I may have missed a few instances that need correcting. Maproom (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done. Thank you for doing this. Coastside (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="margin:0em 0em 1em 0em; width:100% background-color:white" 
 * style="vertical-align:top; border:1px solid #abd5f5; background-color:#f1f5fc;" |

Conversation conclusion
Decision was made to use "Black" and "White" (capitalized) for the players and "black" and "white" (lower case) for stones, groups, etc. Main arguments:

This is how most sources on Go handle capitalization. Coastside (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * style="padding:0em 0.5em 0em 0.5em;" |
 * }


 * There seemed to be really only one "iffy" (if that) in the article – the first-occuring "white" in this sentence: "After white move 1, Black turns at a, and makes thickness all the way out to b, which he then uses to mount a successful attack on the marked white group." I have no problem the way Maproom did it, and think it's consistent with the prev discuss too. (Perhaps ProjChess can profit from this, as I *know* some editors would choose "White move", capping it, in the same text situation in a chess article, whereas others might choose "white move", too.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Compare this: "After white move 1, Black turns at a, and makes thickness all the way out to b, which he then uses to mount a successful attack on the marked white group." To this: "After White move 1, Black turns at a, and makes thickness all the way out to b, which he then uses to mount a successful attack on the marked white group."
 * Thinking more on this, please try this visual experiment...


 * (When just looking at each, from POV of readers, what do editors' instincts say is better? Am interested in any honest input.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Go sources very often capitalize W/B when identifying moves. Usually the word "move" is left out, as in "After White move 1,..."  For me this is written as an adjective but can be perceived as a posessive noun, e.g., "After White's move at 1" in which case it would be capitalized.  If I had my druthers I would capitalize specific references to moves as well. However, I'm happy with the change Maproom made.Coastside (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thx for your feedback. (I agree w/ your druthers. The point re posessive noun is consistent w/ my feel that a move is something intangible so cannot be colored [white/black], only owned [White/Black]. [But isn't "marked white group" also using as posessive noun!?] And there are of course other intangible words too like "plan", "idea", "strategy", etc. The problem with stoping short of your druthers is that "After white move 1, Black turns at a ..." will perhaps seem at least odd to a reader, if not plain wrong.) Thanks for your comment too re what Go sources often do. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's another one:"Who is white in that game? Who is black?" versus:"Who is White in that game? Who is Black?"Thx for any opinion! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking it's "Who is black?". If you said, "who is mother in this family", it would be lower case. If you said, "who is Mother?", that would imply your mum is behaving so oddly you think she might be possessed by demons.Coastside (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That quirky example, was pretty helpful. Thanks! (But, thinking about it more am still confused ... "Of all the players playing in the tournament, who is black in that game?" = your example re "mother". But what if: "There's a guy with a beard playing the black pieces at board 128, and I don't recognize him. Who is black in that game?", or, "Who is Black in that game?" Is it "mother" or "Mother" then?) Thx for opine, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're trying very hard to create an ambiguity. Maybe you will succeed (language is not unambiguous after all). Here's how I would handle your example: "Who is black? Well, ... Black is!" Coastside (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, just as final confirmation, I'm hearing that ... "Black is black, and White is white! But this creates, quite a plight! For if Black plays White (as he might), then black plays white, in the same fight! But if black plays white, then white plays black; so it also might, that Black plays white, when White plays black! And this creates quite a fright, all day long and through the night, since the color terms, for dark and light, seem hard to use, just quite right." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Translations
There is a reference to the word "liberty" with the Chinese translation: 氣 Can someone who knows Chinese please verify this? Other word translations to English are interesting, such as 共活 for "seki" translates as "total live" in English, which makes sense, i.e., "all live". But 氣 seems to translate as "gas". Is that right? Coastside (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Qi explains 氣 in Chinese culture. It is probably relevant. --Kusunose 01:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * MDBG (CEDICT) translates 氣 as "gas/air/smell/weather/to make angry/to annoy/to get angry/vital energy/qi," which if one considers a liberty to be like a "breathing space" for a stone, might make sense. -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Age of Go
Hasn't there been consensus on this yet? I see "more than 2,000 years" in the article, I'm no historian, but R. C. Bell (in The Boardgame Book) states "originating in China c.2000 B.C., and my book Go &bull; A Complete Intro to the Game by Cho Chikun, 1997, lists four theories on age in chapter "Origins of Go", concluding "... it is generally agreed that go is at least 3,000 and might be as much as 4,000 years old". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see the complexity, sorry. (Murray, A History of Board Games, 1952: "Its age is often exaggerated; contemporary references to it only become frequent under the Sung dynasty in China (A.D. 960-1279) ...") Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC) p.s. But even that would make it "more than 2,900 years".

Was the consensus here "more than 2,500 years"? (If so, why did it get changed to 2,000?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

In the article history, "more than 2,500 years" was in place at time of above archived discussion (September 2009), and the next time it was changed (i.e. "more than 2,500 years" was removed) was this edit by User:Eggchaser, without edit summary, on Jan 19, 2011.

Then, it was changed to "more than 2,000 years" in this edit by User:BabelStone on Feb 17, 2011. But I don't see anything in the Talk justifying changing it to "more than 2,000 years" from "more than 2,500 years" that was in effect from at least the archived Sept 2009 discussion on age, until Jan 19, 2011 when User:Eggchaser removed it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

So I'm gonna "be bold" and change it to "more than 2,900 years" per Murray (above) "more than 2,500 years" which seemingly was the consensus in the archived Talk mentioned above. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I won't argue the point as "more than 2,500 years" was the consensus, but really there is no concrete evidence for Go existing more than about 2,000 years ago. The age of Go is consistently exagerated by thousands of years in Chinese sources, and it really would be good if there was a good reliable source that discusses the age of Go objectively that we could reference on the point. BabelStone (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. Just curious, is there something deficient w/ Murray's reasearch in A History of Board Games (1952)? And since I'm not a Go player, I haven't checked & don't know what the major orgs (AGA, etc.) have on their websites or say in their journals. (Do you know? It seems they'd want to maintain a professional position on such important/interesting topic.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Skip re Murray (my arithmetic error). R. C. Bell states in Board and Table Games from Many Civilizations (1969) "... first mentioned in Chinese writings from Honan dating from about 625 B.C." (Is his considered deficient research?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is true that various early sources (Analects of Confucius etc.) briefly mention in passing some sort of game or pastime called yì 弈, and yì is clearly identified as a synonym for wéi qí 圍棋 (i.e. Go) in later sources, but the occurences of this term in the early sources do not provide enough details for us to be sure that the game referred to is actually Go (no mention of identifying features such as black and white stones or the board grid). Almost all reliable sources uncritically accept these early references as being to playing Go, but there is no archaeological evidence to support the meagre literary evidence.  The lack of archaeological evidence for Go (no pre-Han archaeological evidence, and only two known Go boards dating to the Han dynasty have been found) could be be considered not to be significant if it were not for the abundant archaeological evidence for the board game of Liubo (dozens of  Liubo boards have been found in Han and pre-Han tombs, as well as scores of pictures and funerary figurines of Liubo players).  I'm not saying that Go definitely wasn't being played 2,500+ years ago, just that as yet there is no concrete evidence to support that view.  But my scepticism does not seem to be shared by reliable sources, and if they say the game was played 2,500+ years ago then that is what the article should say. BabelStone (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. (I read all your contributions in the relevant Talk archive, too.) Wow. (The article/WP is lucky to have someone your caliber.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There is basically an issue with dating games as most games use the earliest known protogame as an example. There is an earlier found artefact that is almost certainly a 17x17 Go board or possibly smaller with 17 lines. I can't find the proper link but senseis library has it with a brokne link there were some translation issues and their link is dead but basicly this comes from between 200BC to 24 AD and most likely in the earlier part of the period. The rumours of the older age largely come from a very early document attributing the age to this period. Although, this looks like a rewriting of history, the evidence of other games is that they predate history (written records) and therefore the game exists in an oral tradition. There was a dice game on wiki that it is not possible to track 50 years but is much older.
 * In this case we are lucky that on of the oldest tombs in china likely will move the date of go back with confirmed records but the Governement won't allow it opened until technology advances. However, there are two issues which make the 2000 year limit highly unlikely for the age of the game. 1) the name of Go was originally just game (qi) and 2) the arrival of the game in Japan. The estimates which attribute Liubu as a related game seem unlikely but that moves the age back to 3000-4000 years. Most games use the oldest estimate for their age. Apart from a mancala age issue that I had which involved me reading 400+ scientific papers in 7 languages. I think I will end-up writing a paper it was in the course of that I read up on several Go issues.Tetron76 (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Left out link http://senseis.xmp.net/?17x17Board

False Eye?
The life and death section claims a "false eye", with no further explanaton. "An enclosed liberty (or liberties) is called an "eye"", which the point is. What makes it false?! Tuntable (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The final sentence of the Life and death section defines "false eye". Maybe its definition could be clearer. Maproom (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wei Hai
Wei Hai links to go but is it definitely the same game someone had added it to a timeline of games with a date of 3000BC when Go was there already at 2000BC. Is this a protogame. I have encountered most games but I was wondering if it has another English name.Tetron76 (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

GA3
10:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

approximately how many turns in a typical well played game?
that would be a helpful fact to add to the article76.218.104.120 (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Dragon Go Server
hi, as far as i know the www.dragongoserver.net is the only nonprofit go server for time lapse (offline) go playing. for reasons i don't know it lost many players during the last few years. where should it be listet in this article? under weblinks? Maximilian (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Other free play-by-turn English-language Go servers are Little Golem (Go and over 20 other games), and OGS (Go only). Maproom (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

thanks, Maproom! i wasn't aware of the other two play-by-turn servers. where shall we insert the links? Maximilian (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There is an article Internet Go server, with a section Turn-based_servers. This must be the right place to mention them, and indeed it already mentions OGS and Dragon. That article is linked to from the box at the top right of this article, below the second picture. So I don't think any direct links are needed from this article.


 * Something that worries me is the language bias of that article. It mentions four servers, all English-based. But in China there are Go servers with many many more users than all those four added together. But I can't read Chinese, which makes it hard for me to research them. I guess this paragraph really belongs at Talk:Internet_Go_server. Maproom (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

lasker quote?
It's kind of weird to have a quote from a Chess master on the go article, just like it would be weird for the Chess article to start with a quote from a Go master (hint: it doesn't have any quotes). I love Lasker's quote, however it would be more appropriate, I believe, to have a quote from a Go master... Interestingly enough, the go wiki also refers to that same quote.. So maybe that's fine too! :) -- TheAnarcat (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Being more partial to chess and its variants, I prefer Ralph Betza's response to that quote: "Studying the values of chess pieces has shown me that the game of Chess embodies such basic geometrical concepts that if we ever meet the ETs, we will find they have a game with pieces that move, and there will be a Rook, a Bishop, a Nightrider, and perhaps even, if their civilization is sufficiently advanced, a Crooked Bishop." ;-) More seriously, are there any quotes by Go masters about chess? Double sharp (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the more serious problem is that, based on my understanding, it was Edward Lasker who said that, not Emmanuel, Edward Lasker WAS a chess master, but not the world champion. I checked the source, and it's pointing at senseis.xmp.net. I believe that violates the sourcing guidelines... since senseis is also a wiki. That should be removed, and a real source used. But I'm fairly certain it was Edward, (Though everyone WISHES it were Emmanuel)71.236.240.156 (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

3-D Go
Go extends itself very naturally to 3-D. I wonder if it might be good to include some information on 3-D Go, like http://www.leweyg.com/lc/freedgo.html --Westwind273 (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Redirects
围棋 & 바둑 & 碁圍 & cờ vây & いご & ゐご should redirect here (simplified Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Japanese) -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no move. --  tariq abjotu  00:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Go (game) → Go – Very clear primary topic (26 times as many views as the next most, 6 times as many views as all others on the dis page, 12 times as many as all others combined that could be named "Go"). Proposed many times before but always rejected because of "what about go (verb)"? Well now we have a page called go (verb) and it gets 575 times less views. Apteva (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Object to speedy renaming I believe this should receive a full discussion, instead of being an RMTR; also a previous requested move is in the archives on this exact same move, that failed. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to the prior Move attempt. For clarification, the prior requested move failed in the sense that no consensus was reached on that occasion, not because it was generally deemed a bad idea. Trafford09 (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. People don't look up basic verbs in an encyclopedia.  — kwami (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Per Apteva & kwami's arguments. Also, I wondered about other common verbs, such as Take.  Well, whilst Take_(disambiguation) isn't a proper actual disambiguation page, the article Take is what a Wikipedian may regard as the most sensible page for a person looking Take up in an encyclopedia. Consistency with Take would support the Go move, IMHO. Trafford09 (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose—You've got to be kidding. This reductionism at all costs is degrading the ability of readers to search. When an item is so so common, like "go", it is most unwise to strip it back. And at least look at the DAB page. Tony   (talk)  09:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would hope most contributors here would have already seen that page. It puts Go (verb) and Go (game) as first entries - is that your point? Trafford09 (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - 99.99% of English speakers do not think of this game when they hear the word "go", so 99.99% of English speakers who land on this page when they (for whatever reason) look for "go" in wikipedia would be confused. Confusion is bad. It should absolutely not be the default page. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are only on average about 45/day looking for the verb, and about 26,400 visit this article every day. Roughly 750 each day get here via the disambiguation page, a dis-service to all of them. "This article ranked 92 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org." Apteva (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 800 page visits to the 'Go' namespace is an incredibly low proportion of the total. It shows that few people currently get it wrong. And as it's presently constituted, it's impossible to tell what final destination they are after. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 23:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * With obscure terms, such as "tesla", people often learn all they are interested from the disambiguation page. For a term like this it is safe to assume that if they are going to go to the go disambiguation page it is not because they have never heard of the word go or anything named go. A very small number will not go on, and the number going on was assigned by the number of page views each has. We have long known that people mostly get to pages directly regardless of what they are named, because they get there by clicking on links. 800 a day, though, is what I could call a really huge number, and is a clear sign that the page is misnamed, and should be moved to Go (disambiguation). After that is done, the page views will likely drop from 800/day to closer to 20/day. Apteva (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Ambiguity is more than hit counting, and this is ridiculous primarytopic claim.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * More than fits every criteria for primary topic. Apteva (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no way to accurately claim that the game is the primary topic for work "Go". If anything Go (verb) should be primary topic, if the result of the deletion request is to keep it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Making the verb primary would be even worse. A disambig page is the right and best thing for a term with so many meanings.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The number of listings on a disambiguation page is never a criteria in determining if one of them is a primary topic. Due to the way exponentials work, the correct criteria is more searched for and viewed by any other, not by all others, with the caveat that it should be by at least say a two to one margin, and not just by 51%. The same applies if there are only two entries. While we do say, more than all others, we rarely grant primary status if there are two and it is a 55/45 or even 60/40 split between those two entries. It has to be more definite like that, as is the case here. Apteva (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose as lacking in common sense. I'm a Go player, but I believe the move would be counter-intuitive and confusing to users and therefore not in the best interests of the encyclopaedia overall. 'Go' is too common a word to be taken over by an activity that few outside the playing public know. It would seem that very small proportion of readers land on the 'wrong' target article. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 23:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I find the tone of the proposal rather patronising. It implies that anyone not agreeing to the conclusion is some sort of dim-wit. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 23:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Who is it going to confuse? The 45 readers who go to go (verb)? They are still going to be going to go (verb) after the move. The millions of readers who have never heard of go? How are they even going to see the page? Apteva (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * An encyclopaedia is somewhere to go to look up or research topics you don't feel you know enough about. The current arrangement is not confusing to anyone because it's pretty obvious that 99% of people end up where they want to be. OTOH, moving the page is likely to cause no end of confusion. So my conclusion is not to fix what doesn't need fixing. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Who is it going to confuse? How is it going to confuse anyone? Having a game named go does not eliminate the verb, nor does having a verb named go change the name of the game. What it is going to do, though, is help our readers get to the article they want. Apteva (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To Apteva: We have no idea how many of those 750 are headed for the article on the game. The present arrangement is optimal. Assuming more realistically that 1% of traffic for the game article passes through the DAB page, that's a tiny proportion. Where is the problem, and the evidence that the move would solve any problem, even for go-game devotees? But it's easy to show how it would bring new problems: for example, people searching within WP for the game article could no longer tell from the prompts that they have found it; the new page Go (disambiguation) would not turn up in prompts, just as other really useful DAB pages so named are rarely found—neither within WP nor via Google. The 800 issue: apart from the need to deal in proportions, not absolute numbers, this completely ignores the facts. If 800 readers visit the DAB page every day, it's likely that a great proportion were seeking some other article among the 100+ entries there, but don't know exactly what to input to find it. That is why we have DAB pages; and that is why there are prompts in WP searching—though because of their quirks, "go" does not yield the DAB page Go or any of the items listed at it, not even Go (game). Are you assuming those 800 readers want the game article? If they come from Google, the top Wikipedia result they will find is "Go (game)", so they are already accurately directed there, and need no DAB help: : Go (game)—Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)‎ Go (Chinese: 圍棋 wéiqí, Japanese: 囲碁 igo, Korean: 바둑 baduk, Vietnamese: 碁圍 cờ vây, common meaning: "encircling game") is a board game for two ... ‎Rules of Go – ‎Computer Go – ‎Go strategy and tactics – ‎Go software. That's the second top result, and the only entry in the first 100 results. If you're going to go down the stats route, please get the logic right.

Tony  (talk)  02:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The present arrangement is not ideal, nor does it fit with WP naming policy. Right now there are approximately 876/day viewing the disambiguation page. Some of them are curious about what other articles there are with the name go, but it is safe to suggest that it is more likely that most just typed go into the search window when they looking were for the game, as it is the 92nd most popular page that we have. They obviously had some reason for getting there, and it certainly was not mainly so that they could find go (verb). About 1/5.9 view one of the other pages on the disambiguation page than view the go (game) page. So mathematically, about 750 are likely to have been looking for the go (game) page. That is a huge number, and it would be helpful to accommodate them by taking them directly to the go (game) page, instead of making them go through the disambiguation page, which is misnamed go, and should properly be named go (disambiguation). As to google results, Google's programming language go shows up first in Google's search results, but not in bing or Yahoo. No one ever expects that whatever they are searching for is going to always show up first, and always expects to look at the blurb to see if they are at the right place before clicking on the link. Google does have an "I'm feeling lucky" button that users can choose if they want to either get lost or know that it will or might take them where they want to go. Here are the blurbs if the article was moved:

The Go Programming Language Alexa Traffic Rank for http://golang.org/: 45,962golang.org/‎ Documentation, source, and other resources for Google's Go language. ‎Getting Started - ‎A Tour of Go - ‎Documentation - ‎Packages

Go - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Alexa Traffic Rank for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go: 7https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go‎ Go (Chinese: 圍棋 wéiqí, Japanese: 囲碁 igo, Korean: 바둑 baduk, Vietnamese: 碁圍 cờ vây, common meaning: "encircling game") is a board game for two ... ‎Rules of Go - ‎Computer Go - ‎Go strategy and tactics - ‎Go software

Go.com | The Walt Disney Company Alexa Traffic Rank for http://go.com/: 71go.com/‎ Go.com is the top-level home on the Internet to the online properties of The Walt Disney Company. ‎ABC News - ‎Disneyland Resort - ‎Aulani, A Disney Resort & Spa

I fail to see either the distinction or the problem that creates. I am assuming that some readers use the search box, and per comments we have seen complaints that not even typing in "go " prompts for the game, but "go (" and "go g" did (now it takes typing in "go (g" or "go g"). We are not supposed to be making things harder for our readers, we are supposed to be making things easier. We use hatnotes so that people can find disambiguation pages. (For other uses see Go (disambiguation)) We do not place The Beatles at The Beatles (band) so that people can find the disambuation page easier, we have a hatnote on the article, and likewise we need to locate this page at its proper name. This is just simple naming policy. Apteva (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. I respect those who oppose and their reasons, I do. People, however, usually don't land on a page like go "just because". Usually they are looking for something. At go, the thing they're looking for is usually go (game). I think there's a higher standard required when it's such a common word... but this clears that bar as per the excellent pageview stats compiled. Compare to yes, where there's also a main meaning in English (yes and no) and a main article that is unrelated (Yes (band)), and check out Talk:Yes (band)... and check the pageview difference there. Compare that to here, and I see a BIG difference (x10 vs x26). So, support. Red Slash 07:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The arguments that held sway at the Yes (band) -> Yes RM were the ones that ignored the numbers or argued that the numbers are irrelevant in such cases. Same in the present case; bigger numbers are still irrelevant.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That is impossible to say, since no explanation was given, but other than the nom, there was no support for the move. So guessing which no vote swayed the closer is moot. We do need to have a valid reason for choosing a title, not just an opinion. Apteva (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. PrimaryTopic should not be given over a short common word. Someone arriving at go not familiar with the game would be extremely astonished. Also, even among go players, the name "go" is never used without the subject being already established, or without the word "play" or "game" immediately preceding. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone care if someone was astonished to learn that a game was named go? As the expression goes "learn something new every day". Apteva (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Help fact-checking an article about a Go player
In the article Philip W. Anderson, it states without citation "He is a certified first degree-master of the Chinese board game Go".

Knowing that Go usually rates by a numeric or dan rating, this sounded oddly vague, or at least capable of being improved to give a specific rating and related facts. The most I can find is these two references:
 * This page describes an honorary dan
 * This page gives a numeric rating but I'm not sure it matches what the article describes.

Can someone here perhaps check, fix and cite this sentence, as it probably needs a bit of specialist knowledge. FT2 (Talk 04:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * poke :) ? FT2 (Talk 02:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)