Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Go

Irish Go Association - deletion proposed
No mention was made on the project page :( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Irish_Go_Association#Irish_Go_Association --ZincBelief (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Portal: Strategy games: Chess but not Go - Grrr!
Hiya. There exists a, which I guess one can add into the "== See also ==" section of Go articles. (Use a

after it, for neater inter-section breaks.)

But, how come there's not a Portal:Go, even though there's a Portal:Chess,

and the latter enjoys great prominence on the Portal:Strategy games page ?! Trafford09 (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of the people interested in editing Go articles have become disinterested. I find editing wikipedia pretty tedious these days. I remember Charles Matthews suggested a Go Portal years ago, but nothing came of it.--ZincBelief (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Go should definitely be included somewhere in the strategy portal, especially since the main game article is pretty good these days. Steven Walling  16:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the above overview, ZB & Steven. It's a task I think I fancy, starting in early September. I know there's another Go player PetitBouda (talk) who's been pretty active lately, & I can help him with English, with it not being his native tongue. Please keep an eye out for any developments, & help put right any mistakes we make, if you'd be so kind.

In fact, are there any pitfalls you're aware of, that I too should be? Obviously, I'll read up all about Portals before doing anything concrete. Should I pitch Portal:Go right up at the same level as Portal:Chess?

I know it's less common in the West, but only because people haven't had the joy of playing it, in my experience of (cough, many) years of playing Go.

Any thoughts, fears & ideas thrown here into the pot would be very welcome. I'll ask Charles Matthews for ideas too. I know he still edits on WP. Thanks again, Trafford09 (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Creating Portal:Go seems a perfectly reasonable idea. There will probably be points arising as soon as there is some definite content. But that is probably a good thing; general points about articles linked to from the portal can be brought here, while detailed discussion of exactly what the portal should contain should probably remain on its talk page. Thanks for raising the idea. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's just as well that wp:There is no deadline, as I've been sidetracked, so won't be able to look further at this until say mid-October. BTW, I came across this list of all the most recent edits to Go articles, which I found interesting. It's accessible to all from here. Trafford09 (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah - how time flies, & we're all busy IRL! A few more thoughts, though. fr:Portail:Jeu_de_go exists; bravo nos amis francais! Then, France has far more Go players than say the UK. So does Germany - and a few other European countries - so no doubt most of them will have a Go portal, too. The French one looks nice, and seems quite simple. Let's hope that, one day, an English-writing Go-player will have time to replicate say the French one onto the English WP. Trafford09 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Go articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Go articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Good Morning WikiProject
Hi, Is anyone interested in making a push from taking Go from B class status to GA status? The article has a review a while ago, failed on a few small points, and has undergone some work since to address the issues raised. I've noticed a complete lack of interest recently to do anything of substance.--ZincBelief (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. A highly-commendable goal, and good luck with your efforts (& hopefully others'). I'd like to help, but am behind in my own targets (see above). Trafford09 (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of the IGS Go server article
The following tag has been placed on IGS Go server:

The tag goes on to say that:
 * "If you can address this concern by improving, copy-editing, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.


 * The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days, i.e. after 12:51 on 21 October.".

We could help preserve this article, by expanding it, seeking further references to IGS or Pandanet.

This can be achieved by clicking on the following searches:

Thank you, Trafford09 (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not that deletionist-cod-clown again--ZincBelief (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ko Reibun at AFD
An article on Go player Ko Reibun has been listed at articles for deletion -- Articles for deletion/Ko Reibun. Informed opinions about this person would be appreciated. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a reliable source at Gobase: http://gobase.org/information/players/?pp=Ko%20Reibun . The Gobase site should be counted as a reliable source for biographical purposes. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also a mention on http://www.gogod.co.uk/NewInGo/Overseas_1.htm (NB also called Kong Lingwen). The GoGod site by John Fairbairn is to be considered authoritative. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's his official page at the Nihon Kiin: http://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/player/htm/ki000360.htm . It does show he studied under Kikuchi. There are enough sources on this player. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I suggest you provide this information at the AFD discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ko Iso at AFD
Ko Iso, a Go player, has been nominated for deletion based on a lack of reliable sources for a biography of a living person, and issues with notability. Informed opinions at the discussion would be welcome. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Mingjiu Jiang Can you help?
I've tried, and failed to source this long-term unreferenced BLP for Go player Mingjiu Jiang using the info on your Project page (which was extremely useful for several other long-term UBLPs - thank you!). I'm posting here in the hope that someone with better knowledge of the area would like to take an interest and locate at least one reliable source. If it stays unreferenced for much longer, it is likely to be nominated for AfD. --Plad2 (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Plad2. Many thanks for your sourcing efforts in general, and esp. re go-players (plus your kind words). We're also grateful for your alerting us re this player.
 * I've contacted another more-experienced editor who knows more sources in general, so I'll see if he comes up trumps (I'm hopeful) &, if so, I intend to document his new method, with those already documented. Thanks again, Trafford09 (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Over the next three to six months, it is likely that the entire UBLP backlog will be cleared out. For articles which are easily google-searched, they'll be done without incident.  However, non-English names or more obscure people are likely to end up as PROD or AFD candidates if the first google search is blank or just wiki-mirrors.  Your projects full list is only 42 people long as of today, and will probably be under 20 tomorrow -see WikiProject_Go/Unreferenced_BLPs. It would be greatly appreciated if your project could attempt to reference them all, to prevent any lazy searches from deleting possibly notable players.  Of course, this is also a time for your project to ensure that all of the players listed are suitable for articles and delete truly non-notable players as required. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Plad2: this player (& some others) now often play outside Asia. The American_Go_Association has info. on such players. I've added a new section - WikiProject_Go - to show how one can get URLs (in this case 212!) for such a player. Trafford09 (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

A who's-doing-what section or subpage
Hi! I think it could be very useful for us to have a section or subpage about which project members are working on what things. That way, people could tell at a glance what's being worked on and what isn't. If people wanted to work on a specific thing, they could see who else is working on the same thing and collaborate with them. What do you guys think? --Tanner Swett (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Biographies and people in categories
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games

I am hoping to build guidelines for notability criteria for what makes someone notable in the games field i.e. Notability_(sports). Especially games players that I feel needs to have a section similar to the sports and athletes. An example of a question that has just arisen is does winning the first scrabble world championship count as just WP:Oneevent. Combined contribution issues also need defining.

The other conversation is do we want to have category inclusion criteria does a certain threshold need to be met before we add someone to Category:Chess players. Should Ben Afleck count as a poker player?Tetron76 (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Shusaku Number
Hi all. Just in case - like me - you didn't spot the following deletion. Until today, there existed an article Shusaku number. It was deleted as described here:
 * "This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
 * 02:08, 17 May 2011 Athaenara (Talk | contribs) deleted "Shusaku number" ‎
 * (WP:PROD: Nominated for seven days with no objection: reason was "non-notable, no sources".
 * More at User talk:Aditsu.)".

Is there any view as to whether the article merits a case for reinstatement? Trafford09 (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put in a request for undeletion. I think it's a concept worth mentioning on Wikipedia.  However, the old page (still visible through Google's cache) would need some serious work: just compare it with Erdős number for example.  For a start, it would be good to find a second source for the article (does it get a mention in an issue of Go World or Go Review magazine somewhere?) Jowa fan (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's kind of very marginal for the encyclopedia, though. A PROD deletion means it can be brought back at any time. I doubt that there are serious references, but of course there might be. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, finding another good source is less easy than I thought. I searched through Go World Archive and GoGoD and didn't come up with anything.  There is a mention at Small world experiment, but that itself doesn't seem completely reliable.  And there's this intriguing book.  On the other hand, the idea of "Shusaku number" shouldn't be any less notable than Morphy number. Jowa fan (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I could ask John Fairbairn, I suppose, what sort of network concepts the Japanese actually might use. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion
Update: The article has been reinstated - but only temporarily. Views pro- or anti-deletion can now be posted at Articles_for_deletion/Shusaku_number. Trafford09 (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability tag on Sensei's Library
A tag has been placed on Sensei's Library (SL), by an editor who considers that it 'may not meet the general notability guideline', meaning that the article may in the worst case scenario be deleted.

I realise that SL is large & important across the Go continents, and is referenced from 21 other WP articles.

Hence, to me it seems very notable.

I note that SL's notability has been questioned & discussed in previous years & survived.

What are other editors' opinions, please? Trafford09 (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * SL is a good wiki, though in my opinion it would be better if, over the years, it had learned more from WP about how to write reference material. The point here, really, is to what extent it gets recognition from go associations, or in the literature. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I see the person who nominated this for deletion was banned from wikipedia. Snarf Snarf. ZincBelief (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Referenced by some 40 articles as of 2019-06-27. PJTraill (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization
After posting at Talk:Go (game), I am posting here as well, with the hope of receiving broader input. "Go" seems to be capitalized in related articles, and I am wondering if this is correct. Readers have opined that it is traditionally capitalized; I am asking, "Why?". I have no desire to follow the letter of the MoS if there is a better solution. However, I have yet to see a concrete reason for capitalizing. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The biggest source of good go writing in English is Go World magazine and all the books translated and published by Ishi Press and Kiseido. They consistently use lower-case.  That's where I learned to read and write about go, and I still find the upper-case jarring when I run across it. Of course you can argue that that's just one house style. Eleuther (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In favor of upper-case, at least two modern writers of non-Ishi Press go books in English use it (Janice Kim and Charles Matthews). The first go book in English, by Arthur Smith (1908), also used it, but he capitalized everything, including Chess, and the names of the Chess Pieces, and all go terms such as sente and ko and black and white and so on, maybe because he was largely translating from the German author Korschelt.  In opposition, the American Heritage Dictionary gives it as lower-case, as well as the few other dictionaries I've managed to consult so far.  Other game names like chess and checkers are not usually capitalized in WP or elsewhere, i.e., are not treated as proper nouns.  Other words imported into English from Japanese are likewise not usually capitalized, like sushi and tsunami.  (Zen, it seems can go both ways, depending on whether you think it's a proper noun, like Methodism.)
 * The issue seems to turn partly on how you feel about the idea that grammar and orthography are things that can be re-invented as you go along, "for the convenience of the reader," or for other reasons such as ideology or trying to make them more "logical." I personally feel that traditional grammar should be conserved as far as possible, to facilitate communication across cultures and decades.  But this is not necessarily a majority position any more, given, for example, the hash that's been made out the the usage of gender-specific pronouns.  So, on this minor issue within the overall confusion, my opinion is that we should stick to the traditional rule that improper nouns go uncapitalized, but I'm not going to edit-war with anyone about it.  If you want to make a case that we should treat go differently from all other game names, and all other imported Japanese words, let's hear it. Eleuther (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Grammar is a set of arbitrary rules, there is no sense of tradition about them. most people prefer it to be capitalised as has been seen in previous discussions, so why change it?ZincBelief (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think "most people prefer it to be capitalised" is borne out by the discussion either here or at Talk:Go (game). Has it been discussed anywhere else on Wikipedia?  Personally I'm against capitalisation because I think go should be treated the same way as chess and other board games.   Jowa fan (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you bothered to look at the previous discussions on the issue which all resulted in the consensus to keep GoZincBelief (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you give us a clue where these discussions are located? Thanks! Eleuther (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, look for it yourself, I have better things to do. Thanks!ZincBelief (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently, "being polite" isn't one of them. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you regard being lazy as polite? ZincBelief (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, thanks anyway. The discussions I've found didn't seem to show consensus. Eleuther (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer Go capitalised, but I thank Joe for his valid question, and Eleuther for his polite, researched and even-handed opinions. I don't think it's an issue to get upset about, whichever way consensus is perceived to evolve.
 * I prefer Go for various reasons.
 * #1: I'm used to it (I play and read a lot). I'm also a regular proofreader for the British Go Journal (BGJ), a quarterly 44-page publication of the British Go Association (BGA). The BGJ's editorial stance is always to capitalise Go. It's on its 157th journal as we speak.
 * #2: The main Go Associations on both sides of the great pond - AGA and BGA - generally both use it capitalised. Please see this US example and this UK one.
 * (The cited US example actually uses the lower-case version more prominently. Eleuther (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC))
 * #3: The BBC copies the US+UK style in this example.
 * #4: In a shortish article, with the reader perhaps unfamiliar with the game, it's easier to read. (Yes, I know in some Go books it's not capitalised, but in a book of over 300 pages, say, Go would be unnecessary [and tedious].)
 * #5: WP's status quo has it as Go, and there are so many articles we'd need to carefully change if we are to be consistent - a job I wouldn't fancy anyway. There are 55 pages in the main . Under that, just one of its 13 sub-categories -  - has several hundred linked articles alone.
 * Trafford09 (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * To muddy the water a bit more, I've noticed that writers about mathematical game theory tend to capitalize all game names, thus Go, Chess, Poker, Nim, and so on, i.e., they think of games as things that have proper names. Eleuther (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Am not a member here but am impressed w/ Eleuther's points, he seems very knowledgable. IMO the game name shouldn't be capitalized for consistency with other games not trademarked and having no specific known inventor, primarily chess, checkers, international draughts, shogi, xianqi, and backgammon, but also janggi, makruk, sittuyin, shatranj, chaturanga, dominoes, cribbage, crossword, and so on. (It seems strong that go s/ fall into these groups for consistency's sake, and consistency s/b a big deal regarding a respected encyclopedia!) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an old thread, but I still hope somebody's watching it. I am interested in this because I am currently working on some articles about shogi. "Shogi" is also a foreign word and is also a board game. "Shogi" is capitalized when it is part of a proper name, e.g., the Japan Shogi Association, or used to begin a sentence, but otherwise it is typically not, e.g., "I play shogi." So, I am trying to understand how it is different from "go". Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Merging yose into Go terms
I'm thinking yose should be merged into Go terms. I don't think there is enough to be said about it to merit an entire article and that it is appropriate in the Go terms article. While I'm at it I could cleanup the several redirects as well. There are only 12 articles linking to it and 2 of them are redirects. If I don't get a response on this for a few days I will go ahead and do it without one.
 * You should go ahead and do it I think. It's not a very well-referenced stub, and can probably be edited down into a section of Go terms. Steven Walling &bull; talk   06:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization of white and black
There is an ongoing discussion on the Go (game) talk page and I'd like to solicit input from editors of Wikiproject Go. The discussion regards the proper capitalization of White and Black in the article on Go. Coastside (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It has since been archived (here), and the conclusion was to continue the capitalisation, mainly since it is common in many Go sources. PJTraill (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Background
There is a section on the Project page concerning how strong a professional player should be, to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. It contains what is thought to be the current consensus opinion.

However, opinions are divided on whether to leave the recommended threshold as is shown there, or to change it to reflect some new consensus. Discussions are obviously healthy - and welcomed - on this and any other WP issue.

Please feel free to add your views to those expressed below. (I've taken the liberty of moving them to here, from the project page itself, to leave the latter easier to use.)

If and when people feel that consensus has been reached on changing our threshold, do please advise so here, so that after any last-minute discussions, people may agree that consensus has been reached, then we can safely change the threshold accordingly.

Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Users' views

 * I think that this [the 4P threshold & comments thereon on the project page] can only be said to be true for Japanese professionals, where (prior to 200'N') their were 3 tiers of professional status. Given the new system in place at the Nihon Ki-in does this still hold true? The system used at the Kansai Kiin is a mystery to me. For China, Taiwan and South Korea there are different systems. Also, I have no knowledge that Charles is an expert on Chess...--ZincBelief (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not a chess expert, but have a working knowledge of the game. Kansai Ki-in grades are probably (now) less reputable, and mainly in the lower tiers used to accredit teachers. In each system there is going to be a barrier corresponding to a "career choice": it would be less common, I think, for a pro 4 dan in Japan to take up something else. But that is partly cultural.


 * One should note, however - and it is a big "however" - that the reduction of "notability" to "enough verifiable information" works in favour of lower-ranked pros being counted as notable in WP's sense. I have never quite bought into that argument; but the fact is that yearbooks in Japan and South Korea carry good-quality biographical information even for quite low-ranked pros. The population of pro go players in the world is under 1000 living, a few times that if you include dead players too. Judging by what is done for cricket, we could easily argue that every player who has played in a Kisei Tournament (or others out of the same box), or any international all-pro tournament, should be included here. The fact that the Wisden equivalents are in oriental languages is not an argument against at all - rather the opposite.


 * Anyway, it would be good to have a consensus version of this discussion as a project page, rather than a thread. That is the customary procedure. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * From Talk:Tatsuaki Iwata. I don't really see the need for a specific notability guideline for Go professionals, and I'd like to be pointed to the one about chess grandmasters, which I could not find. Then, even if it exists, the parallel should be drawn at the maximum level, so that a grandmaster pairs with a Go 9p. --M4gnum0n (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm, if we were to implement this 4 dan benchmark, then someone like Tuo Jiaxi would be deemed not notable enough for Wikipedia because of his 3 dan rank, despite winning a major title (Chang-ki Cup in 2010) and winning four times in a row in the 10th Nongshim Cup. He was also first in most wins last year with 56. Manfred Wimmer would also be not notable enough despite being the first Western professional.


 * I believe that any go player, if they have reached professional strength, should be notable enough if not only for being a professional in their field. I also believe the Go players article needs a massive overhaul to give readers, new and old, a clearer picture of professional go. Just my two cents.


 * P.S. I know this is a bit off-topic, but why are the Japanese names reversed? I can't think of anywhere that refers to the players in the way WP does. I find it largely confusing and annoying to say "Rin Kono" when everywhere else says "Kono Rin". Leesed0l (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's reasonable to say that if someone is professional 4 dan then they should be considered notable. This should not imply that everyone below 4 dan fails notability: they may be notable for other reasons.  I've edited the first paragraph of this section: 4 dan certainly gives a quick criterion, but there's doubt as to whether it's completely accurate.  (Regarding the name order: I don't like it, but it's standard policy on Wikipedia: for Japanese people born in 1868 or later the family name comes last (but the family name comes first in Chinese and in Korean).) Jowa fan (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I guess I may have misconstrued the original guideline a bit. If I may trouble you a bit more, could you please look at the discussion at Talk:Go players? I've made the suggestion that only players who have won a major title in their respective countries or an international title should be included in the list, with the rest staying in the categories. Otherwise, the page becomes a replica of information that could be found in their appropriate categories. Thanks! Leesed0l (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"Honorary" vs. "Lifetime"
Hi,

I understand why the word "honorary" is being used on Honorary Go Titles and although it is indeed one way to translate the Japanese word 名誉 into English, I don't know believe it is being correctly used in this context. I believe in is much more appropriate to use the word "Lifetime" instead.

While it is true that honorary title may be awarded to go professional in recognition of their over the board play, such titles are also commonly awarded to famous people (politicians, entertainers, etc.) for contributions they have made to the promotion of Go. In some cases, such a person may be a relatively strong amateur Go player, but most of the time such titles are just in recognition of who they are and not of any actual results in over the board play. This kind of thing is not exclusive to Go, but also occurs in Shogi as well. In the West, honorary degrees and other honorary academic titles are not typically awarded due to academic achievement, rather in most cases it is simply done because who the person is, how much money they have donated or a combination of both.

On the other, I think that "Lifetime" in this context is a much better way to describe recognition for excellence in over the board play. In Chess, "lifetime titles" are often given to players who have demonstrated their ability to perform at a high for a certain period of time or number of games. For example, the United States Chess Federation awards the title of "Lifetime Master" to those players who have played 300 games at a rating of 2200 or higher. FIDE awards its "lifetime titles" (FM, IM, GM) to players who achieve certain norms and perform at a certain level. The word "honorary", at least in the West, seems to apply a title granted for ceremonial reasons only while "lifetime" seems to imply a title being that is more likely granted for "actual performance in one's given occupation." Of course this is not always the case, but I think it does apply in this context.

I am a feeling that the creator of this page was not a native English speaker and, therefore, was unable to make this distinction. Speaking from personal experience, I have found that many Japanese have difficulties understanding subtleties such as this. Over the years I have seen many examples of this, where the English being used is grammatically correct, but the context it is being used in is not. Many government, educational, and corporate websites/publications are use English that is not very natural sounding or out of context, but correct according to a Japanese-English dictionary. I think this a perfect example of such a case. Marchjuly (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honinbo_Shusaku
Hi,

there seems to be some vandalism going on on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honinbo_Shusaku due to todays google doodle. A lot of Text was deleted, and some sentences have words removed and now don't make sense grammatically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:5F:2C05:703A:9DE8:4A28:EEDB:567 (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Increase in IQ, Go (game)
"At the moment this section is dubious at best. Its gives two sources, a user discussion at sensei library and, a blog post at rail spikes. the first sections says. "Studies show" while in the source that is given no studies are shown. With one link to a study about internet addiction and how go maybe could prevent that from happening. The second statement comes from a programmer and is a guess nothing substantial but anecdotes are offered, which all once again lead to further speculation that does not seem relevant. While it would be lovely that the wonderful game of Go would increase our IQ. There would need to be at least some WP:RS in a relevant field making that claim, to add it to the article. So I suggest for now at least that this section is removed. Or at least to remove the first sentence if consensus is that the speculation of the programmer should remain. NathanWubs (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)" Coppied from Go (Game). Thought maybe it would be handier to put it here. NathanWubs (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Go articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please merge two wikidata (interlingual links)
Please merge Q22128033 and Q5453259 (articles on the first round-robin for OLD Meijin Tournament). It's beyond my wikiskills.61.210.125.27 (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Goban templates
Currently there exist many different templates for displaying go boards: I suggest merging these into a single template with all the functionality of all of them, and with the ability to specify the dimensions of the board. At the moment I don't know enough about templates to do it myself right now, but I hope to have learned how within about a month. Then I will go ahead and merge them, if nobody objects. Pinging and, the creators of these templates, for suggestions and advice. Reyk YO! 11:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Template:Goban
 * Template:Goban 5x5
 * Template:Goban 7x11
 * Template:Goban 9x9
 * Template:Goban 11x11

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent activity
Hi, is this project still active? Where can I find basic information? Such as: articles/drafts for review or evaluation? Criteria for evaluation, new tasks, member list etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by To1al (talk • contribs) 08:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the replay. I will look at it. To1al (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still around and checking in occasionally, but apart from that I think the project is pretty moribund. There's a members' list here, and a summary of article importance and quality here. I think it would be good to work on articles that are high importance but of poor quality. One I'd been thinking of improving is tsumego. Reyk YO! 09:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we discuss what "turn" means here please?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shape_(Go)#Turn_%E2%89%A0_Hane_(they_mean_different_things)

According to wikipedia (and only wikipedia) turn means hane, but in the go community, turn means "bend" or "magari". Can we please try to be consistent with the rest of the go world? I have a dozen go books that all use the term "turn" for meaning bend, never hane. Can we try to fix this inconsistency so that wikipedia can be more consistent with the wider go community? 2600:1006:B04F:6BE5:6886:72F6:227:6742 (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Go Portal and navbar template
New portal for Go: Project:Go

Also, new nav template: Coastside (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * - I realize this was done in good faith, but did you get any feedback from others that a Go Portal was a good idea? The general trend on Wikipedia has been to deprecate and delete Portals.  Put bluntly, readers don't use them, yet they're not encyclopedic articles themselves.  I highly doubt that Go is a viable Portal - perhaps it should be quietly deleted?  SnowFire (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting the Chess portal also be deleted? What is the criteria for which to keep and which to "deprecate"? Coastside (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably we should delete Portal:Chess too, yes. The trend has been to draw back which topics get Portals, so adding even more Portals is going the wrong direction.  Unfortunately, you're not going to find a strict criteria on what counts as a viable Portal anywhere, but there was a radioactive debate two years ago or so cleaning up moribund Portals that even led to an admin getting de-admin'd.  (Check out Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/March 2019 and all the Portal nominations for just some of them.)  In general, the two most common complaints were "lack of updates" and "readers don't use them".  Portals that were frequently updated (and thus avoided potentially having incorrect or out of date material on them, or more generally just got really stale such that they'd be better as a normal article) and that had views > 50 views a day or so generally survived.  Portals that were abandoned where somebody made a Portal in 2011 then said "my job here is done" and had <10 views a day were generally deleted (and this was, uh, a lot of them).  Portals in the middle - maybe the occasional update or a recent attempt to "save" the Portal, and 10-50 views a day - got erratic MFD results.  If Pageviews seem a strange criterion, remember that Portals are not articles; they are more like meta-content.  Meta content that nobody uses is by definition useless, unlike obscure but real articles with low page-views; for a normal company, it's okay if nobody reads the legally required privacy policy, but it's bad if nobody goes to a fancy guide or advertisement.  I don't think Portal:Go is ever likely to break into the safely-good pageview count level.
 * More productively, if you want to create something Portal-ish that's still an article, you can try ripping off Outline of chess and various other "Outline of XYZ" articles (e.g. Outline of World War II, Outline of France, etc.) - Outline of Go would be a normal article, so being stable and less magazine-y is fine, and could have the useful parts of the Portal. SnowFire (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's one of the most depressing replies I've ever read. I appreciate the background and sordid history. I thought I was advancing the cause of encouraging people to learn and appreciate the wonderful game that is Go, when in fact I was merely walking in the footsteps of dead forebears. Coastside (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I should add that there do exist Portal stalwarts who vociferously disagree with the above and think Portals are great. Certainly Go as a portal is more defensible than many of the crazily specific Portals, so don't feel too bad, but also don't be too shocked if pageviews remain very low for it.

I'd be happy to help start off a draft of Outline of Go - outline articles are pretty easy to make, you just check the main category and throw in a bunch of links to the key articles with some loose structure added to it. I do think that would be a useful thing to add. SnowFire (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I created the nav template because I thought there was need for "a bunch of links to the key articles with some loose structure". I'm indifferent to an outline article, although I'm not sure if it's needed. Coastside (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

tagging Talk pages of articles and categories
I would like to suggest tagging the talk pages of articles and categories relevant to Go with WikiProject Go. This is obviously only necessary when the article or category is no already tagged with Wikiproject Go. I believe every article and category that is in the category Go (game) or any subcategory of this category should be tagged that way. I think the talk pages of most Go articles are already tagged this way, although perhaps not all. Subcategories of Go (game) are less likely to have been tagged. I was manually tagging them but then thought there may be a way to do this with a bot.

I asked if this task could be done with a script of bot at User_scripts/Requests. Apparently this can be done with a bot, but it requires the consensus of the WikiProject community. Does anyone object to doing this? Coastside (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Add capitalization of Go to Guidelines
I'd like add the convention that "Go" should be capitalized in Wikipedia to the Guidelines section of WikiProject Go. This issue comes up every now and then, and it would be good to have it as a stated convention. I also think we should add this convention as an exception at MOS:GAMECAPS since this is sometimes used to justify using lower case "go". By convention, most articles in Wikipedia already capitalize the term "Go". My understanding of this convention from previous discussions is that the capitalization of Go is consistent with sources on Go, including Go World magazine, and many others. I believe Go publications generally capitalize Go, because using lower case "go" introduces readability issues in English because of the common use of the verb "go". Coastside (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC) [Revised] Coastside (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note that this discussion was debated in the Go (game) Talk page here. That discussion was originally opened in 2014, and eventually went quiet. The discussion thread was recently reopened again in 2021 at the end of the thread. Clearly this needs to be stated as a clear guideline to put the debate to rest.

Also (what triggered my suggestion above) please join a discussion about a request to revert a page move based on the question of capitalization. Coastside (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I found an example of the aforementioned readability issues. This is from the article Yasuhiro Nakasone.

This is clearer when written:  There are other games like bridge that are English words, but there aren't the same readability issues as with the common verb "go". For example, there would not be the same readability concerns with:

Regardless, this is not to argue for a unique Wikipedia convention. This is simply to explain why English sources on Go have adopted the convention of capitalizing "Go". It makes sense for Wikipedia to follow the convention used by these sources. Coastside (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This question is actually addressed in the Go article under etymology, which says:

The source referenced there: It is a convention, with good reason, and even if it isn't "unversially adopted", most sources and most Wikipedia articles follow this convention. I'd like to formalize the decision on this to establish editorial consistency and to avoid repeated debates on the topic. Coastside (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Coastside (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Since writing this, I had to undo this revision by an IP user. This is an example of why we need to make the convention clearer. It would be helpful to be able to point to a statement of the established convention in the Wikipedia Go guidelines vs. having to point to this discussion for the reasons. Coastside (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support I meant to come here earlier to give my opinion. I think Go should be capitalised. That's how the majority of English language sources do it, and we should follow the sources. Not to mention avoiding confusion with the common verb "to go"- one very misleading and unfortunate example of this confusion has already been provided above. I think this should be one of the exceptions laid out in WP:GAMECAPS. Reyk YO! 14:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC) [Revised user comment to add support label] Coastside (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I am in agreement with Coastside that Go should be capitalized following most English-language sources on the game. A clearer convention stated outside this discussion will be helpful to future contributors. Let me know how else I can support this action. SyLvRuUz (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC) [Revised format to add support label] Coastside (talk) Coastside (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support As per the above arguments. Autarch (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ... although I will go further and say that I think the current gamecaps guideline is not optimal. I quote David Parlett (an accredited consultant on games terminology to the Oxford English Dictionary): Phil wink (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC) "Propietary games, like Monopoly, Dipolmacy, etc., are customarily spelt with a capital initial, and traditional games, such as Chess and Draughts, with a miniscule. In this book, however, I follow my usual practice of capitalizing all game names regardless of their status. Consistency—that 'hobgoblin of little minds' (Emerson)—is not my primary motive. Capitals have the advantage of simplifying the questionable cases like Ludo and Snakes & Ladders, which in course of time have passed from 'trade' to 'trad'. They also obviate the sort of confusion exemplified by the difference between Losing Chess, which is a game, and losing chess, which is a disgrace. The practice need not, however, apply to derivatives. Thus a chessboard and chessmen do not need capitals, as both can be used for playing games other than Chess, and are therefore generic rather than specific. I also use '&' for 'and' in such games as Snakes & Ladders, Hare & Tortoise, etc., in order to prevent one game from reading like two, especially in a list."


 * Support As per the above arguments, most eloquently and succinctly put forward by Coastline and others. I'm a longstanding proofreader for the quarterly-published British Go Journal, which has always supported and adopted this convention for Go. I've also been fortunate enough to have played the game for 44 years, and traveled to most continents playing Go, FWIW. Furthermore, a precedent is set in the article Monopoly (game), where currently nearly 400 times Monopoly is spelt with a capital 'M'. Trafford09 (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a very typical WP:Specialized-style fallacy (just like chess people having a tendency to prefer "Chess", etc.), and you can't overrule a site-wide guideline by having an almost hidden discussion in a wikiproject backwater, per WP:CONLEVEL policy (the entire reasons that policy exists is specifically to prevent wikiprojects from making up their own rules).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this discussion to WP:CONLEVEL. According to that policy, "editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change.". This means if there is a consensus here, we would need to elevate the discussion to the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters before implementing any change. Personally, I don't believe your comparison to "chess people having a tendency to prefer 'Chess'" is apt. The word 'chess' is not also a common verb in English. The readability problems in articles on Go are specific to this game.Coastside (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support for reasons given in the RM - that reliable sources almost always capitalize "Go" in this context ( Google scholar for "Computer Go" or GScholar for komi go ). That's really the end of the debate for me - Wikipedia follows usage in the outside world, it doesn't create its own.  SnowFire (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – the use of caps to resolve an occasional ambiguity is completely contrary to WP's style of avoiding unnecessary capitalization. We have a longstanding consensus that game names like go and chess and bridge are not capped.  Why would be make this exception now? Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support; MOS:GAMECAPS allows for the use of capitals where dictated by convention, and this is one of those cases. I note this BBC article that I find particularly persuasive as it uses "chess" in lower case but "Go" in upper case. BilledMammal (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I elevated this proposal at the MOS:GAMECAPS talk page. Please join the discussion there.Coastside (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

List of books about Go
Please see new list article: List of books about Go. Help by adding missing books.Coastside (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I am only about 70% convinced of the suitability of articles like this as actual Mainspace articles as opposed to a Wikiproject subpage resource. But anyway, there is a smallish list here that I had going a long time ago. Reyk YO!</b> 21:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)