Talk:The Queen's Gambit (miniseries)

Automatic archiving is enabled for this talk page
To User:GenQuest and anyone else interested: This talk page is archived automatically by a bot, as specified by the Archives box in the header. What this means is that us editors have agreed on when and how talk discussions get archived. There is no need for manual archiving (such as with the OneClickArchiver tool), and in fact, doing so would supersede and ignore the agreed-upon pace at which talk discussions get archived. So, please, do not manually archive talk pages where automatic archiving is set up. If you are dissatisfied with the pace of archiving, the proper course of action is to discuss changes to the existing archive bot parameters. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please cool down. Even when automatic archiving is set up, there is nothing stopping an editor from archiving manually. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is considered to be disruptive editing when it is done prematurely and ignoring auto-archiving that was set up a while ago. According to WP:TALKCOND, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB in wikitext or has numerous resolved or stale discussions. — Young Forever (talk)   21:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That rule of thumb does not make premature archiving "disruptive", as long a recent discussions are left on the page. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see why anyone would ever want to archive discussions prematurely... Other than that, I agree nothing technically prevents an editor from archiving manually a talk page governed by an archive bot. That doesn't mean it is a good idea or should be given a pass in general. Implementing a mechanism to prevent tools like OneClickArchiving from archiving bot-governed talk pages is a bad idea and would likely be much more work than it is worth. Much better to rely on the common sense of editors to only OneClickArchive bot-governed talk pages in those relatively uncommon cases when there is an actual need. CapnZapp (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If an editor is doing it prematurely on multiple Talk discussions, then it is disruptive editing as in not a one time incident. — Young Forever (talk)   23:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure YoungForever, but the topic of this discussion is "please don't manually archive talk pages governed by bot parameters, since you are effectively ignoring a previously agreed-upon archiving cadence". I did not bring up GenQuest's actions because I judged his OneClickArchiving to be premature or not premature (he had not yet made the mistake / poor judgement call to OneClickArchive this discussion), I brought them up because manual archiving is neither needed nor appreciated when we have given the archiving job to a bot. CapnZapp (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This is time wasting nonsense. Questions: Did it hurt anything by archiving stale/resolved discussions? No. Was this even discussed before. No. The editor in question says: ...means is that us editors have agreed on when and how talk discussions get archived. There is no need for manual archiving (such as with the OneClickArchiver tool), and in fact, doing so would supersede and ignore the agreed-upon pace at which talk discussions get archived... What "we"? Please post the permalink to that conversation, I missed it. (I see a monologue about it in the archives of this page, but certainly no discussion or even a dialogue between two users – just someone else in the past being chastised unilaterally by the same editor for this supposed "violation." News flash: It's no violation to archive stale discussions). Don't you have more important things to do than call-out people because you don't like it that way? There was no reason to immediately elevate this into some pissing-fest. A simple discussion on a user talk would have probably done.
 * There was no policy being broken, and the auto archiver obviously wasn't set properly or working (not uncommon), or 3/4-year-old discussions wouldn't be here in the first place. The calling out publically of a user on the article talk page, however, was over-stepping common practice and not appreciated. I archived the original conversation to give that editor time to re-think his actions, as we don't template the regulars–even on their personal talk, but ESPECIALLY on an article talk page. That kind of bullying won't fly with me. Period.
 * I expected the move to be reverted, as it was, but was hoping the editor would've had the common sense to remove the call-out.
 * So now, I've been forced to respond in a time consuming and more thorough manner. Over bull-shit.  People need to get a life. And, I want my 15 minutes back...  GenQuest  "scribble" 05:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is no longer a high activity page. I don't understand why people are getting so het up about archiving. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @GenQuest Hear, hear. Debresser (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Absence
Apologies to and thanks to Bruce and  for fixing and explaining my mistake. As Max notes, "absent for" has a different meaning here than "absent from" and only the former is correct in this context. Quale (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, if experienced editors can get this wrong, the reading public is probably doing so too. So if anyone can think of a better way to phrase it ... Bruce leverett (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

mention of the Corona epidemic
A big part of the buzz around this show is its release during the epidemic. Nowhere in the article is this discussed or the epidemic even mentioned. CapnZapp (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

possible 2nd season
I don't remember if this was ever brought up by the article and later removed, or just never addressed. Either way, feels a bit strange to not say even one thing about this. Taylor-Joy even made a (cut) SNL sketch with this as its punchline. CapnZapp (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Doing a comedy sketch is not a confirmation of a possible second season though. — Young Forever (talk)   20:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is or will ever be a second season and have not claimed such. I am pointing out a deficiency I feel is present in the article; that the article nowhere summarizes what has been said re: a possible 2nd series. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)