Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules of chess

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. NawlinWiki 18:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of chess

[edit]

WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a guide or instruction manual. This is all this article is. A recreation of the rules of the game, the title really says it all. WP:ILIKEIT are not valid reasons for keeping this article. If this article is ever meant to be no more than a simple copy of the rules please edit it accordingly, otherwise it has no place on wikipedia. Also keep in mind its a debate not a vote. Crossmr 15:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn based on recent edits and willingness of some editors to make this article more encyclopedic and not just an instruction manual on how to play chess. Further comments on content will be made on the article's talk page.--Crossmr 16:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Keep. WP:NOT specifically refers to "video game guides". Guide is not the same as rules. This is a legitimate subarticle of the overlong Chess; how could you describe the game without including the rules? In fact, the entire movement section from that article should be placed here as well (I'll do that if when this article survives). Clarityfiend 16:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Video game or chess game, its the same thing. Whether its the rules of pong or the rules of chess, the article is the same. You can describe chess without creating a full article which is essentially just its rules. WP:NOT also refers to instruction manuals. This is an instruction manual on how to play chess. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rules_of_Settlers_of_Catan See this for previous precedent on a non-video game rules being removed. As far as describing the game without including the rules, we have a template which can be used to link to wikibooks indicating the the rules can be found there for further reading.--Crossmr 17:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your definition of instruction manual differs significantly from mine, and from the contributors to Rules of Go, the rules sections of Backgammon, Checkers, etc. etc. Clarityfiend 17:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ILIKEIT the existence of other articles is not justification for keeping this one. Only that their existence should be looked at.--Crossmr 17:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed those other articles out to show that your's is a minority interpretation. Clarityfiend 23:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention Simplified baseball rules, baseball rules and probably many others. Bubba73 (talk), 00:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is five years old! If there was a problem with the article don't you think it would have gone by now? Incredibly detailed, far too long to merge into the parent article, and Wikipedia is not paper. —Xezbeth 17:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The age of the article is immaterial. Do you have a reason that meets policy for why it should be kept? It currently violates policy.--Crossmr 17:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PAPER WP:BASH. If a policy gets these articles deleted then that policy is in a very sorry state. —Xezbeth 17:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately I think the fact that we're not in the business of providing instruction manuals supersedes the fact that its not a paper encyclopedia. In fact the section you quote clearly states This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines. You don't get to ignore other content policies, including the fact that we're not an instruction manual.--Crossmr 17:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Except this article is not an instruction manual. Think of it as a section of the chess article describing the rules (as you'd expect on any board game article, especially one as complex as chess). Your interpretation of policy is not shared by everyone, so it doesn't invalidate my opinion in the slightest. —Xezbeth 17:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Describing the rules is giving instruction on how to play, hence its an instruction manual. This isn't part of a larger article, its an article named and dedicated solely to providing the rules.--Crossmr 19:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument is not whether this article violates WP:NOT, but your broad interpretation of what constitutes an instruction manual. By your reasoning, we should gut the Legislative procedure section of United States Congress, because it gives "instructions" too. Clarityfiend 20:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That article isn't purely an instructional manual. This article is. Start to finish its solely about the mechanics one would go through to play this game, right from how to pick who gets which side to the end of the game. Though honestly there could be some clean up in that article because I can see the legislative procedure section dipping in to speculation and original research in a couple spots. In the case of this article it is clearly teaching someone how to play the game.--Crossmr 20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be implying that it would be ok if it were merged into the main Chess article, because then it wouldn't be "purely an instruction manual". That's not a valid Afd reason. Either the material is encyclopedic or it's not. If rules for chess should go, so should rules for Congress, baseball, football, golf... IMO, you're confusing a description with instructions. Clarityfiend 21:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don´t care about rules of English Wikipedia and my experience is that they are often wrong (especially voting should be voting, not consultant discussion). I see good article and it is good complement to article chess. --Dezidor 17:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So then you haven't provided reasoning under policy and guideline for why this should be kept?--Crossmr 17:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that this article should be kept because: 1. I it is well written article. 2. It is good complement to article chess. Merge it isn´t good idea and article "chess" would be without this complement worse than now. 3. It is not guideline, but article about rules of very famous play. --Dezidor 17:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those reasons supersede WP:NOT. I never suggest merge, but transwiki to wikibooks. That is the purpose of that site, and why we have a template to add to articles to indicate there is content on that site related to this article.--Crossmr 17:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The third reason is according your policy, because it proves that it isn´t guideline. We have also article about many rules (such as parts of criminal law). It isn´t guideline, but article about notable rules. --Dezidor 17:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, thats your opinion, its not proof. The way it reads to me is it that its an instruction manual on how to play the game from setup to finish, including on how to start the game, in which flipping a coin certainly isn't a notable or unique method to do so. So really that's evidence against your opinion stating that its about notable rules.--Crossmr 17:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats your personal opinion. --Dezidor 17:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have some evidence that flipping a coin is a notable or unique way to start a game of chess? If not, that simple little sentence completely invalidates your argument that this is about notable rules of chess.--Crossmr 19:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOT#GUIDE. While this is a notable topic, notability cannot supersede WP:NOT. WP:NOT prohibits several notable items Corpx 17:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per argument for chess strategy. It would be a lot easier if these were grouped together Calgary 18:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither that article nor this article are encyclopedic entries on the history of the rules, strategy or tactics. They're simple instructions guides on how to play the game, some tactics and strategies to use. If they were history articles on how the those things have changed over the years that would be a different story (and not in violation of policy).--Crossmr 19:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I made a name doesn't mean anything. People could have a name for over 5 years and not have a clue. The fact that you made a comment like that on "new user alert" shows that I have more to contribute to AfD by arguing on important points than you do by just filling the discussion with off topic nonsense. NobutoraTakeda 14:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even though this is a notable topic it violates WP:NOT#GUIDE. Oysterguitarist 21:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, misunderstanding of WP:NOT#GUIDE is at work here. I happen to be an amateur expert at chess (see my userpage), and I can tell you that every major general-interest encyclopedia, including Britannica, covers the rules of chess in its article about chess. Surely we don't wish to add to the WP:MISSING list? Furthermore, the history of the rules of chess is a fascinating topic, one which I could devote some time to developing if the muse strikes me. The concept of "Wikipedia is not a game guide" does not apply to the most basic rules of the most notable games on planet earth. I can't say it any more strongly than that. Shalom Hello 22:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At which I could answer that a misunderstanding of AfD with your comment of "speedy keep". With other delete comments, speedy keep wouldn't be applicable even if it were accepted policy. Gameguide applies more to strategy and tactics. Instruction manual applies directly here, and you'll forgive me if I missed the footnote which said "everything but chess".--Crossmr 22:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As you point out, "in its article about chess". Your vote should be merge into the article about chess, not keep, if your rationale is what you believe in. NobutoraTakeda 22:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia does not construct articles in the same way paper encyclopedias do all the time, for one thing although we are not a paper encyclopedia, we do get performance trouble if articles get too long. In a paper encyclopedia the editors handle very long topics by devoting more pages to it and add a lot of headings, and don't worry that much about article length. You will find that a paper encyclopedias article on the United States is far longer than Wikipedia's article. For instance the Brittannica Macropedia has merged all the content on each US State into their main United States article, while Wikipedia has articles on each state instead. On Wikipedia we handle very lengthy topics, such as chess, by spinning out important aspects, pretty much for technical and readability reasons. While a paper encyclopedia handles the rules of chess as a separate section in an already lengthy chess article, Wikipedia, which need to keep reasonable limits on article length for reasonable download times, prefer several shorter articles with the main article covering the broad overview only. Shalom said keep, means keep, and is perfectly reasonable when he says keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep or possibly merge Extremely encyclopaedic subject, I'd be shocked if even a paper encyclopaedia didn't have at least a basic overview of the rules and strategies of chess. If WP:NOT implies that it shouldn't be here then I think this is a clear case where we should Ignore All Rules. It's not some here today, gone tomorrow video game - it's chess! Iain99 22:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I brought up previously, wouldn't this be best served on a page about Chess as oppose to its own article? I'm sure that Brittannica keeps the two together. NobutoraTakeda 22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle yes, it should be in the chess article. In practice however, that article is already on the long side, so keeping a very basic summary there and spinning off the bulk into its own sub-article is a valid thing to do. Britannica would, of course, group all chess topics together into a single big article; it is however able to devote twenty pages or more to a single topic, whereas Wikipedia has practical limits imposed on its page sizes by dial-up speeds, so splitting large topics up into several sub-articles is SOP. Regarding all the chess pages as being essentially subsections of one super-article, the reason for having a rules section becomes clear - you can't use terms like castling or en passant in more specialised pages unless you have already defined the terms elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. Iain99 12:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually on further reflection, I think a case could be made that there's too much overlap between this article and the rules section in the main chess article. Either the rules section in the main article should be stubbed further, or else the extra content in this one (except the Pop Culture section, which is trivia and should just go) should be added to the main article and the Rules of chess page be left as a redirect to that. I don't have a strong opinion on which is best - I'm happy enough to leave that to the regular editors of those articles, and merging and redirecting wouldn't actually require an AfD. Iain99 15:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chess is not a sport. Besides, almost every "game" out there has rules. An encyclopedia shouldnt be a gameguide listing all the rules for every RPG, board game, card game etc.... Corpx 22:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because wikipedia is not a game guide or instruction manual. Paper or not, the article violates policy. We have rules for inclusion and this does not meet them. If there are articles like rules of football then they need to be removed.--Crossmr 23:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're discussing this article right now. You may wish to read WP:CIVIL before continuing to participate. As I already pointed out more than once, the existence of other articles doesn't justify the existence of this article.--Crossmr 23:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of (Many) other articles like this may not automatically justify the existence of this article, but it implies the consensus is for rather than against. While we're on the subject of consensus, it seems as though you (Crossmr) are the only one supporting deletion. Given the vast number of comments you've left, that effort could have been directed towards improving an article that's almost certainly not going to be deleted.
Because it is written in Summary Style, as recomended, for one reason. Bubba73 (talk), 02:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Although it may technically breach the technical definition of the guideline WP:NOT#GUIDE, it is ludicrously notable and as such well worth keeping. Although, yes, a lot of topics are notable but are not valid because of other rules, I think the rules of chess are worth improving rather than simply deleting. The page on 50 Move Rule contains history, changes, explanation and famous examples of the rule... Far more encyclopedic than a game-guide. Given the importance of this article and the ease with which it could be made to pass WP:NOT#GUIDE, deletion seems like a farce to me.Simondrake 00:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are the second person who acknowledges that it does violate policy but feel it should be kept? If you think the article can be made to pass policy, I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination, but someone would have to demonstrate that by editing accordingly.--Crossmr 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. youngvalter makes an excellent point. Rules do not teach a player how to play a particular game - they simply define the construct in which a player must exist. (I totally stole that from the Matrix). If an encyclopedia is a reference tool, then this article is exactly what is needed. the_undertow talk 00:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The rules are an instruction manual on how to play chess. What pieces can move where, how they can move, who moves, etc and even goes so far as to give suggestions on how you can decide who plays white. We have a site to host this material and templates to use for doing so (in fact wikibooks already has a chess section). Whats the aversion to putting this article in the place it belongs?--Crossmr 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't tell you how to chose who plays white - it describes how it is commonly done. Bubba73 (talk), 00:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we've written in it in such a way as to avoid the use of "you" doesn't make it any less of an instruction manual.--Crossmr 02:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't it? A list of instructions in the form: "You walk up to the lift. You press the Call button. You wait for the doors to open. You go inside. You press the button of the desired floor. You wait while the lift moves. You exit the lift when the doors open again" is clearly a guide instructing you on how to use a lift. The section: "Lifts are called by pressing the call button, inside the lift are several buttons that direct it to different floors" describes the same functionality of lift buttons but in a descriptive manner, not an instructive manner.193.128.87.36 12:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Rules of Chess can be more than a list of the rules of the game, it can be an encyclopedic history of their development. There is much too much information to be contained in a single article on Chess, which already maxes out at 77 kilobytes. As a featured article, you can’t dump the relevant information into it. The relevant notice from WP:NOT is Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This page does not advise or instruct, but explains. You would gain nothing by deleting this article, for Wikipedia deserves some sort of article on the subject. It’s a convenient categorization, overview, and analysis for all the topics and pages about particular rules. Wikipedia would not be complete without a page for the rules of Chess. –Sarregouset (Talk) 00:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually there is more that is relevant there, This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, a rule book is an instruction manual. Its how to play the game.--Crossmr 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for some reason (slow dial up lines? old browsers that truncate?) the powers that be at WP don't like long articles; if we had didn't have that to run up against, I'd say merge with Chess, but we seem to have that limit and hacking off rules, strategy, and tactics is as efficient a way of dealing with that as any I could come up with. Carlossuarez46 02:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But shouldn't something as essential to understanding Chess like the rules be combined? Also, there are some redundencies between the pages and I think much of the page size comes from the huge picture files that aren't necessary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess#Rules Couldn't there be just a chance that there is a lot of unnecessary content in there and the other page? NobutoraTakeda 02:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a link to an image adds very little to the size of an article's file - just a few bytes. Bubba73 (talk), 02:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just commenting about dialup. Even if its a link on the page source, it comes up as a heavy duty image when someone loads the page. You have to take that into consideration because not everyone is blessed with 100 gigs per second download speed. Heh. NobutoraTakeda 02:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a topic that is covered extensively in other encyclopedias and this article does not appear to be the spot to invoke a wikipedia policy that has flaws. --Stormbay 03:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would argue that most pc games are 100x more complicated. Corpx
  • IAR right back. IAR can't be invoked to ignore policy. Nor is it meant to be used in debate. Only as a concept to edit by.--Crossmr 04:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The spirit of the rules described by IAR is that if something improves the quality, scope, tone and content of wikipedia without detracting from it (As would be the case in non-notable articles like one about my cat, it might improve the scope of wikipedia since it includes details about my cat, but it is detrimental to the content since it's not notable. Also, biographies of major porn stars may be notable but are excluded because the damage the tone). I fail to see how an article on the rules of chess can harm wikipedia. Also take another look at the article, several people have been improving it so it is now more than just the rules, history and other sections have expanded the scope beyond anything that could be considered 'just a game guide', therefore your original complaint is sort of out-of-date....193.128.87.36 12:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a case of Ignore All Misinterpretations of Rules. Bubba73 (talk), 14:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and that does not in and of itself warrant a deletion. Listing the rules of a game is not always tantamount to an instruction guide. I go into this more on the deletion page for Chess strategy, but in a nutshell my position is that the rules of a sport (or chess, which is sanctioned in a manner similar to a sport, and is of reasonable interest to someone who is not seeking to play the game themselves (like a sport)) are encyclopedic when they appeal to a significant group of people who seek to be informed about the subject, even if they are not themselves seeking to learn how to play the game. Also, keep in mind that notability does play a role, because the fact that chess is arguably the most well-recognized and firmly established competitive game in history supports the notion that the rules/mechanics would be of interest even to those who do not wish to play the game. Also, take note that Wikipedia recognizes a game guide or a strategy guide as referring specifically to video games. And in general, try to remember that it's a bad idea to favor the words of Wikipedia policy over the spirit of Wikipedia policy. Saying that an argticle should be deleted simply because the rules say such and such, then using that argument to dismiss common sense is, as I may have said before, hopelessly pedantic. Calgary 05:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was joking about deleting WP:NOT. The policy is perfectly fine, you just have to read it a bit more carefully and consider both the letter and the spirit. First, what about WP:NOT#BURO? When the policies lead to a result that would be silly -- deleting a topic covered in every encyclopedia for example -- we do the right thing instead of blindly following the rules into a ditch. Second, and importantly, the content of this article simply does not fit WP:NOT#GUIDE as many above have elegantly argued. This is chess, it is not Command and Conquer: Red Alert. Third, this was created per WP:MOS as part of an WP:FA. Even if you disagree with the interpretation of all the people above who have argued keep, please look at what WP:IAR says:
When you edit Wikipedia:
* Improve and maintain content.
* Build and follow consensus.
* Use common sense.
If the rules prevent any of this, ignore them.
This nomination is proposing to dismantle the structure of a featured article. Nominations that damage featured articles on extremely encyclopedic, verifiable, notable, etc. topics, are borderline WP:POINT violations. --JayHenry 05:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think that's a very accurate summary of everything that JayHenry just said. No, sorry, I'm being completely sarcastic. I think he did a pretty good job of describing all of the other reasons this article should be kept. Perhaps they might answer your question. Calgary 05:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you can show me where in the policy it says if the subject is really notable, we can have all kinds of policy violating articles about it? I didn't think so. While that is an exception you'd like to make. Its not afforded in the policy. IAR doesn't apply here, because wikibooks already has this content, and we have a template specifically for its use. There is nothing wrong with putting the content in the place it belongs.--Crossmr 05:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just didnt like the assertion that FA's subsections were untouchable because, well they were FA's subsections. I also dont see why chess game guides are allowed, when one entailing the rules for a "Rules of Counter-Strike" wouldnt be allowed. There are plenty of rules for any game that's played competitively (at a "pro" level). Corpx 05:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this one is different from the other two, because it should contain more discussion on the history and changes in the rules of chess and the reasons behind certain rules, and the applicability and differences in tournament play. However, since you used the same arguments on the other two, I have no sympathy. This is simply wasting time. KP Botany 06:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "Rules of chess" article is allowed for the same reason that we have articles for National Hockey League rules and American football rules and Rules of basketball (although the basketball one is mainly historical). An article for the rules of a sport that has documented widespread interest and is played at a professional level would not be automatically elligible for deletion under WP:NOT#GUIDE. Now, chess is not a sport, but it is sanctioned in a manner similar to that of a sport, has a widespread interest, is played competitively on both an amateur and professional level, and is generally held in high regard as a form of professional competition. Generally speaking, most people wouldn't regard the champion of a video game tournament as being anywhere near as esteemed as being the World Chess Champion, nor would such a champion be as widely recognizeable. Who knows, maybe one day video games will be regarded in a manner similar to that of a sport, but that is a question about what society should accept rather than what wikipedia should accept. Either way, as it currently stands, chess has honors and implications that video games generally do not, meaning that from an encyclopedic standpoint chess and video games should not be judged according to the same standard. Calgary 06:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I beg to differ on that the statement about video game champions. With the advent of E-Sports and leagues like Cyberathlete Professional League and Championship Gaming Series, I think much more media attention and money is poured into this. Esteem is subjective, and you're entitled to your opinion on that. Anyway, I'm fine with this article, but unfortunately that's not the case for the other two that were speedily closed. Corpx 06:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedly Keep This user does not appear to understand that there are encyclopedia articles about chess strategy and rules and tactics, just like there are books about these, and there are books that are guides to do these. I would like an administrator to step in and put a stop to this--it is serving no purpose whatsoever, other than wasting the time of Wikipedia editors. KP Botany 06:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but frankly the nominator admits in the nominating post that this article could be a keeper if someone would edit it. This is just trying to prod people to edit an article--why don't everyone edit articles tehy want on thjeir own time schedule instead of nominating them for deletion as a ruse for getting them edited? Or voting for their deletion, I think, in your case. This is silly, and this isn't what AfD is about: I'm nominating this because it needs edited. KP Botany 06:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If all the rules are removed, than yes. I didn't mean that a little history should just be added to the article. All of the rules should be removed. Anything that has a notable name that people might be interested in already has its own article, so that doesn't need coverage in this article.--Crossmr 13:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wait a second... You want ALL the rules to be removed, permenantly? So wikipedia with it's 1.8 million articles will not state that Knights move in an L-Shape because that's essentially exactly the same as a walkthrough for Halo 2? I don't think you're serious. Honestly, do you really think it will help wikipedia to delete this page, or is this some sort of joke, dare, experiment or crusade?193.128.87.36 14:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • Delete - In its current state it violates WP:NOT; however, if were merged with strategy and it evolves into more than rule book, it should stay. All the other rule books should be deleted also if they are plain rule books as this one is. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not it's not... look again, there's sections on In Popular Culture, History of advanced rules, Controversy and more than just a recitation of the rules of chess.193.128.87.36 08:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the popular culture section should be removed. These do not benefit articles and 99% of the time are just trivia sections. --Crossmr 13:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedias like Brittanica describe the rules of chess, so the topic is so ridiculously encyclopedic that even paper encyclopedias cover it. I am also amazed at the nominator citing the "ILIKEIT" essay before any arguments opposing deletion have even been presented! Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for historical value if nothing else. Rules of chess have historical significance. --Tbeatty 07:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course keep. Very notable. Everyking 08:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability was never an issue.--Crossmr 13:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep We have about 2000 chess related articles, and the proposal is to delete the article explaining the rules? Voorlandt 08:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A valid article on a reasonable topic. "Video game guide" clause only covers minutiae detail ("go to such-and-such place to get such-and-such item"), not overview of game mechanics (i.e., something you could discern from reading the game manual or from even cursory playing of the game). The chess equivalent would be listing of bazillion different opening traps without any consideration... some of those are notable, some are not. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Instruction manual covers rule books pretty thoroughly. The other two articles (Strategy and tactics) were more of gameguides than this. This is plain and simple an instruction manual.--Crossmr 13:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, first per the argument that the a large amount of similar articles represents consensus, second that chess is in fact seen as a sport and the World Chess Federation is recognized by the International Olympic Committee [2], and historically was covered in Sports Illustrated and other mainstream outlets, third chess played an small but important part of the cold war such as World Chess Championship 1972 as well as during the collapse of the Soviet Union [3] so a description of the rules of chess might be important to historians and others who might come across material about these events that assume some knowledge of chess rules (and readers of other wikipedia articles), and finally the matches between Kasparov and Deep Blue and their relation and meaning to understanding human and artifical intellegence are dependent on a belief in the complexity of Chess, which makes the article concering not only the history of chess but a specific article on the rules of chese not only notable but neccessary in Wikipedia. XinJeisan 10:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless all those articles have survived a deletion attempt no it doesn't. All it represents is that someone hasn't gotten around to nominating them. Notability of the sport is immaterial as thats not even questioned. I'm not trying to delete the chess article. A lot of things could be important to historians, like all our geneoligies, but we don't put them on wikipedia. Wikibooks already has the rules of chess, and we have templates to link to it. That is where it belongs.--Crossmr 13:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Utterly encyclopedic information without which the entry on chess would not be complete. Also, I don't really see how WP:NOT applies, as a set of rules is not a set of instructions, as per other sports. EliminatorJR Talk 14:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep As stated above, the only reason this is its own article is because the FA chess is already far too long. The articles on the various chess variants such as xiangqi and shogi all give the same basic information on how to play the game. This article is an important base by which to understand the other 2000+ articles about chess on Wikipedia. In short, if there's an unencyclopedic article on chess in this project, this one certainly isn't it. UOSSReiska 15:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing my opinion to strong keep, as I honestly question the reason this article was nominated for deletion. While Crossmr is correct in that it does violate a particularly narrow interpretation of WP:NOT, Calgary has given a fine explanation of why we should go by the spirit of WP:IAR here, notwithstanding the fact that the rules for play are covered in nearly every sports article on Wikipedia, not to mention nearly every variant of chess which has an article on Wikipedia, AND notwithstanding the fact, as mentioned above, that printed encyclopedias cover the rules of chess in their articles on the subject. All of these, I feel, are sufficient reasoning that WP:NOT should be ignored even if this article does in fact violate it; and this is further bolstered by the fact that User:Crossmr says in his nomination, "If this article is ever meant to be no more than a simple copy of the rules please edit it accordingly, otherwise it has no place on wikipedia" - but instead of coming to the talk page and trying to improve the article, he just slaps an AfD on it. It reeks of bad faith to me. Especially on an article rated as Top Importance to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess. UOSSReiska 01:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All three nominated articles were rated as "top importance" before the nominations. Only 55 of the project's 1850+ article are "top importance" (less than 3 percent). All three articles are subarticles from the FA chess. Full disclosure: I'm a card-carrying (i.e. userbox-displaying) member of the Chess Wikiproject, and I participated in some of the evaluations. Bubba73 (talk), 01:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interpreting this as a violation of WP:NOT is a drastic case going by the letter of the law and not the spirit (much to the detriment of the project, I think.) As everyone else has already said, have you ever seen an encyclopedia that didn't include the rules of chess? Last I checked, the first thing listed at WP:FIVE was "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". The provisions against game guides and instruction manuals are meant to prevent pages like "How to get the first star in Super Mario 64" and "How to repair your weedeater", not as an excuse to remove something that's vitally important to understanding any other articles about one of the most widely-played board games in the world. Why, exactly, anyone would like the specific wording of the constructed guidelines of Wikipedia more than the goal of making the best encyclopedia ever completely escapes me. Pinball22 17:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The only difference between this and "How to play chess" is the name. If you changed the name, would you really change the content of the article at all? (yes I realize a couple sections have been added since the start of the AfD, but honestly the popular culture one should be removed). Yes there was a tiny amount of discussion in the initial setup, but the gameplay section is pure and simple an instruction manual on how to pick sides, what moves you can make and how the game flows.--Crossmr 18:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, as I've mentioned before in this discussion, a ruleset is not the same as an instructional guide. If the information were only of value to those who themselves wished to learn how to play the game, like the rulebook to monopoly, or cluedo, then yes, it would be an instructional guide, but chess is far more significant than a Parker Bothers table-top board game. Chess is sanctioned in a manner similar to a sport, in most places it is held in just as high a regard as a competitive sport, and it is arguably the most reputable "game" in history. You may say that notability is not an issue, but in this situation it is, as when considering whether or not an article should be deleted based on GUIDE the value of the information and the context of the information come into play. Because of chess's status and significance it is very likely that it's rules will be of interest to a varge group of people, even those who do not wish to themselves learn how to play. Unlike other games, chess is not a game where the rules would only be of value to those who are learning to play, but rather, like a sport, the rules, just like the game, are of widespread interest to a significant group of non-players. And if you're going to suggest that an article that is very useful and improves the quality of Wikipedia should still be deleted, simply because it has the potential to be used as a guide, I'd like to remind you that Wikipedia policy does not exist in a vaccum, it's important to follow the spirit of the policy over the wording of the policy, and that your argument is getting increasingly pedantic. Calgary 19:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet, notability is a guideline and WP:NOT is policy. So tell me which it is the community sees as more applicable? Guidelines certainly do not trump policy, and it seems to be that once again you admit that the article really does violate guide, but think its so notable an exception should be made. One can very easily learn how to play chess from this article, right from how to start a game, what moves are legal and who can move, all the way to how to end the game. There could be significant interest in many topics which have no play on wikipedia (like unverified celebrity gossip, one only has to pass a supermarket check out line to realize how popular that kind of thing is), yet it has no place here. Honestly gossip is as old as chess if not older. The point is, the information certainly isn't lost, its at wikibooks, we have templates. how does it remotely harm chess to have an interwiki link rather than a link to an article here? It doesn't.--Crossmr 20:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, you're missing the point entirely. Just because someone could learn to play chess from reading this article, that doesn't mean that it's the article's only function, because as I've said countless times, it is of widespread interst to people other than aspiring chess players. The reasoning behind WP:NOT#GUIDE isn't that any article that could possibly be used as a guide in some way shape or form needs to be deleted, it's that a article that serves exclusively or primarily as a guide is inherently unencyclopedic (something I agree with). However, as it's already been established that this article's primary function is not to teach the rules of chess to people who wish to learn how to play, the fact that it could be used as a guide by such people is irrelevant. Calgary 20:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Crossmr, WP:NOT is policy. However, using the "not a game guide" provision of it and the statement "One can very easily learn how to play chess from this article..." as part of an argument for deletion is a really strange twisting of the point of the policy... it's meant to keep out unencyclopedic topics, not to somehow protect people from learning to play games. Perhaps I shouldn't have named my example articles things starting with "how to", as you took the name and not the implied content as the relevant part. My intent was to show that "bishops move diagonally" is a different level of instruction than "run forward, jump on a goomba, and collect some coins", one that I believe is clearly encyclopedic as the knowledge is necessary to comprehend any further material on the subject of chess, a subject which you've already agreed is appropriate for inclusion. Could you please explain why you feel that it's so important that WP:NOT be read so incredibly broadly? Policies are a tool we have created to enable us to work together to construct an encyclopedia; should their interpretation prevent us from doing that? Pinball22 21:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually its not really so broad. When I proposed the rules of settlers of catan for deletion, there was no real resistance. It was also no different than this article. Its been a few months (about 10) but I think it might have had a little more liberal use of "you", but changing you to "the player" doesn't exactly make it encyclopedic.--Crossmr 21:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rules for a ten year old game vs a sport recognized by the olympic committee makes a difference. The word encyclopedia "comes from the Classical Greek "ἐνκύκλιos παιδεία" (pronounced "enkyklios paideia"), literally, a "[well-]rounded education," meaning "a general knowledge." The rules of a 10 year old game do not represent general knowledge, the rules of one of the oldest games in western civilization does. This is not a court of law or a legalistic debate. Though enjoyable to be on the winning side of an argument, if you disagree with various lists you should make an argument for policy to be explicit against these types of articles, you should take it up at the village pump as opposed to picking and choosing AfD requests.XinJeisan 22:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're missing the point as well. When I nominated this article it was nothing else and there was no indication it was to be anything else. There was nothing to distinguish this article from an instruction manual on the rules of chess, and anything else. There was no commentary on how the rules evolved, or any other kind of content. Labeling the articles Rules of Chess, or How to Play chess would have been equally as valid. Who is to say that the rules of pokemon wouldn't let people better understand the game? or the Rules of ANY game might not lead to greater understanding? Probably they would. But its not wikipedia's place.--Crossmr 21:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is more to playing chess than just knowing the rules. There is more to driving a car than knowing which petal is the gas and which is the brake, or what a Stop sign and a Yield sign mean. Are those instructions for driving a car? There is history of the rules in the main chess article as well as in some of the sub-articles linked in rules of chess. Bubba73 (talk), 22:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never suggested this article taught them how to be good chess players, just that it was an instruction manual on how to play chess. Knowing the movies, which order to play in, the rules, how to start and end a game is all two people need to know to play chess.--Crossmr 23:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right and a lack of a history of the rules is detrimental to the article. Now I've added some other sections (Whether they have 100% freedom from criticism or not is a matter for discussion elsewhere) that improve the scope of the article. Perhaps you should consider using your time to add history of the evolution of the rules or otherwise improving the article instead of endlessly sticking to an interpretation of the rules that is clearly against consensus. To put it frankly, whats the point?Simondrake 22:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if there wern't information about the history of the rules, that wouldn't be automatic grounds for deletion. You're not recognizing the correlation between notability andfunction. If a subject is as notable as chess, then it is likely that it will be of interest to people who do not wish to learn to play. If the article does not specifically teach a person how to play, it is not a guide. The link here, is that a very significnt group of people who do not wish to learn how to play chess will find this information useful, which means that this article's primary or at least overwhelming function is something other than to teach the rules of the game. This is not an article that is a guide, which may under uncommon circumstances be used for other purposes, this is an article which serves as encyclopedic material about a subject, and may under uncommon circumstances be used as a guide. Understanding that is key to understanding why this article should be kept. (And by the way, we do have articles about the rules of pokemon). Calgary 22:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The rules of chess are a fundamental, relevant and encyclopedic articvle related to the game of Chess. An article of this scope and magnitude would make little sense to merge with the parent article and stands on its own. I would suggest eliminating some of the trivia at the bottom of the article, but the article is a clearly justifiable fork of Chess and stands on its own as establishing notability. Alansohn 18:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge was never a recommendation. Transwiki was, and honestly its already over there at wikibooks. Notability was also never called in to question.--Crossmr 18:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article in its current state isn't really suitable for wikibooks, because it goes beyond the flat character of the rules somewhat by exploring the historical context of them (this is, perhaps, something that could be further expanded on - perhaps an article on the _evolution of_ the rules of chess from their origins would be more "encyclopedic" to Crossmr. Still, the article certainly should _not_ be deleted. UOSSReiska 21:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • :Sarcastic comment. The article G minor gives the rules for what notes are in the key of G minor. That's an instruction manual for playing a musical instrument - it has to go! :-) Bubba73 (talk), 19:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the Geneva Convention contains rules about war crimes, therefore it's an instruction manual on how to wage war and must be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simondrake (talk • contribs)
You both may want to read WP:CIVIL the sarcasm is neither necessary nor welcome.--Crossmr 23:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per WP:FIVE - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This article epitomizes encyclopedic content, is found in virtually all paper encyclopedias, and would be an embarrassment to the Wiki project if deleted. Questionable interpretations of WP:NOT with little consensus do not trump the five pillars. Evouga 23:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And NOT defines those things which wikipedia is not, in fact its directly referenced from WP:FIVE.--Crossmr 23:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They do summarize. In a summary you often leave out information. they link to it to indicate the other things which wikipedia are not. So that people can understand that. They also link to other policies for further reading and understanding of them. They don't capture the entirety of the policy in that short summary. You won't come right out and say it, but the multiple times you've said "yes WP:NOT, but it should be given an exception for reason X" indicates you realize this is an instruction manual, however the reasons you've given for keeping (notability being the chief one) has no exception made for that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but WP:NOT defines the things which the community felt shouldn't be included in that encyclopedia.--Crossmr 00:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, when I read responses like this, I worry that you're ignoring all of the valid aspects of my argument in favor of the few that you are disagreeing with. I'm not saying that I believe this, I'm simply explaining my mindset, in case you feel I'm being irritable or something. In any case, I'm going to write my position one more time, and I'd like you to examine it carefully, because I want us to be in full understanding of one another
1. First off, Wikipedia does not strictly define what an instruction manual is (game guide refers to video games, see game guide), but I have been arguing under the pretense that An instruction manual is a set of instructions or collection of information, of which the exclusive function is to teach a person how to do something. I think that's broad enough, eh?
2. I would now like to explain my other assertion. The rules of chess are of interest to a significant group of people who are not interested in learning how to play chess. The only reason I evoke the concept of notability is to support this assertion.
3. I would now like to explain why this article is more than an instruction manual. In accordance with assertion 2, this article will provide information about chess to people who will not use the information to learn how to play chess.
4. And now why I feel that this article should not be reasonably considered a violation of WP:NOT#GUIDE: As per assertion 2, this article's primary audience will not use the article as an instruction manual, meaning that while the article has the potential to be used as a manual, it is not inherently a manual, because overall it has an entirely different function (as per assertion 3).
Okay, there. I tried to explain myself as clearly as possible. Now, hopefully, we'll be on the same page...Calgary 00:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The intended audience is immaterial. Otherwise people could claim all kinds of intended things which aren't in the article. Just because someone could use it to learn more about chess without learning how to play it (honestly if you read that from start to finish you will learn how to play chess whether or not thats its intention) doesn't mean its not an instruction manual. I could pick up a pokemon rule book and read it to learn more about the game without wanting to learn how to play it. It doesn't stop it from being an instruction manual on how to play the game. The fact is the article is written primarily as instructions on how to play the game. There is no other explanation for the part about how players decide on who goes first. Thats really completely unnecessary for people grasp a further understanding of chess. However it does fit in with teaching people how to play a game of chess. While explaining certain notable rules and very basic mechanics at a higher level would allow people to further understand chess, getting in to the nitty gritty of how players decide who gets what colour in a game (which is honestly likely original research anyway) doesn't do that. --Crossmr 01:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that, as you say, people can use it to learn more about chess makes it not just an instruction manual. And the fact that people can use it to learn to play chess doesn't make it inherently inappropriate. As I said before, the policy is to designed to keep clearly unencyclopedic content out, not to keep out encyclopedic content because someone might learn from it how to do something. Pinball22 01:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing additional thing they learn is how to play the game. Same as they would with any rules of anything. There would be no difference between this and the rules of the pokemon trading card game, except that chess is even more notable (in most circles, and honestly debatable in a lot of them), yet there is no allowance for that under the policy. Since we'd obviously delete that article, what is the basis for keeping this one and claiming its so encyclopedic? There isn't one within the policies as far as I can tell. Notability of the subject doesn't give blanket permission to create any old article you want that is in someway related to the subject.--Crossmr 02:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intended audience is always material. Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. How material is going to be interpreted defines, at it's heart, what material is. There is no absolute standard by which to determine what material is or is not, but the most accurate standard is what the audience will interpret it as. It seems to me that over and over again you're saying "it's a guide", to which your supporting argument is that it "can be used as a guide". It's important to recognize that there is a difference between an instruction manual that can incidentally provide information to someone who does not wish to use it as such, and an informative article that incidentally has the potential to be used as an instruction manual. This article is clearly of use to people for it's informational value rather than it's instructional value, and it's potential is not the same as it's purpose or primary function. If we assume good faith, then it is logical to conclude that the article's fairly large group of editors intend for this article to be used for it's informative value rather than as an instructional manual, but even more importantly, as long as the article's audience will primarily value the article for it's informational value, then the article's primary function is that of an informative encyclopedia article, not an instructional manual. Calgary 02:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then tell me, why after 5 years did it take an AfD to add any real encyclopedic content to the article? If it were intended to be an informative article on the rules of chess, why is there no history on how rules have changed, why certain rules developed, etc? If that intent were there, it should have materialized after that period of time. It was kept purely as an instructional manual. My supporting argument is that there was no other content in the article beyond that of being an instruction manual on how to play the game, supporting evidence is the missing history, and inclusion of such non-notable and non-unique methods of determining who is what colour. That section alone really nails the distinction up to be seen. The counter arguments provided do not address the policy in question. Philosophical musings aside, the hidden nature of the article is immaterial. You have to look at the content of the article and how it reads and what is included in it. The level of detail is unnecessary for people to get an understanding of chess. Discussions on notable moves, a higher level mechanics would suffice for people to understand chess. Telling them how to decide who gets what colour is an instruction manual, plain and simple.--Crossmr 02:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then tell me, why did you not try to improve the article yourself first before determining that it should be put up for an AfD? All you did was post a "This article violates policy" on the talk page. Real constructive. I admit I'm not a contributor and only found myself here because I saw your AFD while reading chess articles, but I'm not a contributor because I don't have the kind of knowledge this article needs to do the subject justice, on the history of the rules and whatnot. And it's a good chance that that material didn't, well, materialize because the people editing the article didn't realize it was a violation of WP:NOT because they were being bold instead of spending all day reading the rules until they find some grounds to AfD an article they don't like. UOSSReiska 11:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Remember that some of us (well, I am) are making the point that the rules of chess are encyclopedic in and of themselves. The spirit of WP:NOT seems to be against rule books being inserted for every game willy nilly, not keeping out articles about games and sports of which general knowledge is assumed to be benificial to a large group of people who do not participate in said sport or game. XinJeisan 03:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The players choose colors by mutual agreement or by random means such as coin flipping. Commonly, one player conceals a white pawn in one hand and a black pawn in the other. The other player selects a hand and plays that color.
The player controlling the white pieces moves first. While this gives white an advantage, it is not known that white can force a win if black plays perfectly. After the initial move by white, players alternate moves. Play continues until a draw is declared, a player resigns, or a king is trapped by means of a checkmate (see below)."
From American football rules:
"The game begins with a kickoff, which is one type of free kick (see below). Prior to the game, captains from each team participate in a coin toss. The winner of the toss may make one of the following choices: to kickoff, to receive and have the other team kickoff, or to choose an end of the field to defend. The toss winner nearly always chooses to receive, because that means they get to go first on offense. The other team then may choose from the remaining options (usually which end of the field to defend). In amateur football, the winner of the toss may also defer their choice to the second half and give the other team first choice of options in the first half. This is typically done when the captain winning the toss wants to receive to start the second half."
Is it encyclopedic of an article about a sport or similar form of competition to describe the standard method of determining who goes first/other opening conventions? Yes, of course it is. I'd have to say that that's even more relevant to someone who wants to understand chess than a person who's trying to learn how to play (It's information that's far from essential if you want to learn how to play). And as far as the content improving since you nominated the article, that's a good thing, not a justification for deletion. And if Wikipedia is going to be a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge then, yes, this amount of detail about a subject like chess is acceptable, even outside of chess instruction manuals. I'm not saying that notability justifies this article as an instruction manual, I'm saying that notability justifies the information in this article as being appropriate detail for such a widespread general-interest subject. Calgary 03:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was encyclopedic when it was about a sport. I've repeatedly pointed out that the existence of other rules articles doesn't justify this one. Again, if you can point to somewhere in NOT which says if the subject is really notable, leave it, then by all means do so. The content hasn't necessarily improved. Some has been added to it, both good and bad. (popular culture sections = trivia and not good for articles). However, nothing has been taking out. wrapping an instruction manual in history doesn't make that section of the article any less an instruction manual. NOT applies both to articles and sections of articles. However, if someone actually wants to improve this article, and thinks that it can be made to be something more encyclopedic with histories, etc about the rules and not just an instruction manual (regardless of the notability/nuances/etc surrounding this article), this was all it was, you've admitted it yourself in a round about way, I could see the wisdom in withdrawing the nomination as there was not only potential but willingness for improvement here.--Crossmr 03:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a very good argument, when I cite sports articles I simply do so as an attempt to give a good example of other articles to which my argument applies. And again, as the discussion progrsses you're ignoring the foundation of my argument. I'm not saying that if a subject is notable then instruction manuals regarding it should be allowed, I'm saying that if an article has value other than that of an instruction manual, value that will be recognized by most people, then it is not an instruction manual. If you can offer evidence that a significant amount of the information in this article is valueless except as an instruction manual, and explain the reasoning behind the idea that said information is valueless, please do, and if you have done so already and I have overlooked it, please be so kind as to point it out to me. Calgary 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out, the rules of ANYTHING have the same potential for usefuless. But are denied by the policy. There is no exception made in NOT for "if these instructions would be really useful outside of learning how to actually do it, then by all means keep them." Being "useful" is covered in WP:ILIKEIT. Many things are useful to many people here, they don't all get a place on wikipedia.--Crossmr 04:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but to the contrary WP:NOT#GUIDE does not say "Delete any article that could possibly cause anyone to learn how to do something". And, after taking into consideration all of the elements of my argument, that the information is widely useful outside of the context of a guide, that the subject itself is very notable, and that the subject is of widespread scholarly interest, take into consideration the fact that Wikipedia policy may be subject to reasonable exception. Yes, someone could potentially use WP:IAR in favor of anything, but in many cases such an argument wouldn't hold up. Taking into consideration that every article is unique. As it stands my argument applies specifically to Rules of chess, and you have to accept that my argument is both logical and reasonable, and that it reflects the general consensus established in this AfD discussion. It seems that even you don't disagree that my argument is within reason. So what's the problem? Calgary 04:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, claiming that the article is functional has nothing to do with WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ILIKEIT refers to opposing deletion because one supports the subject of the article, not opposing deletion because one believes the material within the article is of encyclopedic value. Calgary 04:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't but as I pointed out, this article was originally written to do nothing but instruct on the rules of chess. There is a difference between an article that could potentially teach someone something, and an article written exclusively as an instruction manual. As I pointed out before, if you have to invoke IAR, you're doing it wrong. I don't think your argument is within reason. Regardless of the notability of chess, or how necessary you think a reprinting of the rules is to readers, I don't see the benefit of it being here on wikipedia which has a policy against it, when we have a sister site, already holding the content, and templates intended for its use. Duplication here is unnecessary and the duplicated content is against policy. You don't seem to disagree that it violates policy just that an exception should be made. Nothing other than IAR gives you a usuable exception and thats a last ditch grab at best. As I said, if there is a willingness there for improvement, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. But potential without willingness is the same as no potential at all.--Crossmr 04:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all I have left to say is that I've essentially made my entire argument as to why the article is not primarily an instruction manual. If you can't see that, then there's really nothing I can do, I could state it again and again, but that would make things hopelessly redundant. The quality of an article can always improve, so if you have specific ideas about how to improve the article, I would recommend at least posting it on the talk page. If you don't see the value that the article has to an encyclopedia now, I doubt I can do much to change that, but it does seem that as of now the general consensus is in favor of keeping the article. In any case, I hope that the final decision, whatever it may be, both reflects the view of the community, and does what is best for the quality of Wikipedia. Calgary 04:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions:

  1. Would Ten Commandments and Five Pillars of Islam fit the nominator's concept of a guide or instruction manual? After all, aren't they essentially telling one how to be a Christian and how to be a Muslim respectively?
  2. How can anything in Category:Chess variants make sense if the rules of chess aren't explained in the first place?

youngvalter 02:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd question the existence of some of those varients as the notability of the individual varient isn't demonstrated in at least 1/2 of a few random ones I picked. As I've pointed out multiple times, the content would still be available through wikibooks where it belongs.--Crossmr 02:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Wikipedia should have the info. Many more people read/edit Wikipedia than Wikibooks. Wikipedia is the mother of all Wikis. Somewhere (I don't know exactly where), it says that the ultimate goal of Wikipedia is to contain all human knowledge. Bubba73 (talk), 03:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No actually its not, maybe thats where the confusion comes in. If wikipedia were to contain all human knowledge WP:NOT wouldn't exist, as it strictly forbids several types of human knowledge on a variety of subjects.--Crossmr 03:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment My reading of WP:ILIKEIT seems to exclude any chess article from this argument, because chess is (as stated time and again) notable. Countless reliable sources could be found writing about chess, and people who have no interest in playing chess know what it is and its best players up until the year 2000 or so were household names in the US, and probably in Russia they still are, though I have no source of that. However, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is also not a valid reason for deletion, and even if I agreed with Crossmr that the rules by themselves are not encyclopedic, he himself says that the article has potential to be more than a rule book, so, beyond I don't like rules in wikipedia and policy agrees with me (in spite of a seeming consensus of other editors who disagree) what argument do you have? XinJeisan 04:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This will be my last comment as well, as per Calgary. XinJeisan 05:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Crossmr, you said, "You don't seem to disagree that it violates policy just that an exception should be made." I can't speak for Calgary, but I do disagree that it violates policy. You are interpreting WP:NOT to forbid all descriptions that are also instructions, which I think is an incorrect reading of the policy. An encyclopedia should, first and foremost, tell you what the thing you're reading the article about is, and in the case of a game like chess, the rules are a vital part of that. The fact that you could also as a side effect learn the action of playing chess from them doesn't make them any less a vital part of understanding the concept. You demand historical context, impact on the world, etc., and of course these are things we strive to have in every article. But we want them in addition to the description of the subject, not instead of it. Pinball22 13:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet that argument fails when you take in to consideration that the article includes instructions on how you can pick someone to go first in the game. That certainly doesn't give any greater understanding of chess or help clarify any deeper topics. A higher level overview of certain notable rules and concepts would benefit greater understanding of higher level concepts covered in other articles related to chess. The minutia of how to play a game start to finish does not do that.--Crossmr 15:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not contain instructions on how to choose who goes first (Anymore). It states in a very educational manner that the decision could be dictated in a tournament but is otherwise normally random- Unlike Go where skill determines the order of play. This is informative, comparative and explains how the decision is made in different circumstances. Stating a choice can be made by flipping a coin is not the same as telling someone to flip a coin. The article is not instructions193.128.87.36 15:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if you're going to base your entire objection to the article on one small section, then this shouldn't be at AfD... you should be discussing on the talk page what you think needs to be changed. Pinball22 15:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The defense that this article was not an instruction manual was based on the fact that it was providing necessary information for a deeper understanding of the rules that would lead to greater understanding of more complex concepts. My point was that I didn't feel it was, and the detail it delved in to (throughout the entire article) was unnecessary, and that section was a very solid example of why this article wasn't written to generate an encyclopedic understanding of the rules.--Crossmr 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This nomination, and the two that follow below, are Wiki lawyering at its finest. Having found a piece of potentially ambiguous policy that is at odds with obviously encyclopedic content, perhaps it would have been better to discuss clarifying the letter of the policy, instead of nominating all these articles to illustrate a point? Evouga 15:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the policy remotely ambiguous, nor do I find the level of detail in the article when I nominated it to be encyclopedic. --Crossmr 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the editors of paper encyclopedias more credible authorities of what is encyclopedic than your personal opinion. On this point I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. Evouga 19:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you find it encyclopedic now?Simondrake 19:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The policy in question is being discussed on the talk page of WP:NOT,

Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#WP:NOT_-_Gameguides. Bubba73 (talk), 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I don't see how any encyclopedia would be complete without a basic article on the rules of chess. Thus, I believe WP:IAR trumps the other policy against gameguides (which should be reevaluated). RJaguar3 | u | t 00:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? You mean that when I open up Brittanica that I will find a seperate page devoted to the rules of chess? This isn't a "basic article" but an article filled with pictures and other unnecessary content that should be cut and merged. If Brittanica can summarize Chess so adequately, why do we have to spend 100 times the effort? NobutoraTakeda 01:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely rude to say I should read Paper when I was discussing an online encyclopedia and never mentioned anything even close to paper. Please read my comments or if you don't want to read my comments, don't respond. Its uncalled for for you to post what you said because it shows that you didn't see anything that I wrote. NobutoraTakeda 07:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rules of Chess could easily have 70% of it cut as unnecessary. NobutoraTakeda 07:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And how would that in any way improve WikiPedia? The only unnecessary parts I see in Rules of chess are in the Popular culture section, which was added (ironically) in an attempt to make the article more palatable to the small number of people advocating that the page be deleted. I think the article was probably better off without much of it, as it is very close to a Trivia section. Quale 08:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having extremely long pages takes away from the readability and the informability of a page. Chess is not that complicated of a game. Rules do not need more than 3 or 4 paragraphs, and the rest of the information and fancy charts are extremely superfluous. NobutoraTakeda 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find Rules of chess to be an extremely long page. You might note that your views seem to be very much a minority opinion. It seems you have fewer than 30 mainspace edits with at almost all being AFD or prod nominations, but over 200 Wikipedia space edits, the vast majority of them related to AFD. I'm afraid I think you need a little more experience with editing articles before I can give your opinion on WikiPedia policy and guidelines very much weight. Quale 15:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that Encyclopaedia Britannica is a paper encyclopedia, and that the fact that we can create a more comprehensive group of articles than them doesn't mean we shouldn't. Calgary 01:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People keep saying that but Britannica has an online version too, you know. NobutoraTakeda 01:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd check the online version for comparison if you like, but I think you need to be a member, which I'm not. So I guess there's nothing I can do. Calgary 02:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. But I just felt that people keep dismissing Britannica as being paper. I looked at the contents and got a "summary" of the various pages, and none were lists of rules. It seemed to be broken down into chess with the rules, chess in history, chess pieces in history, and then famous chess tactics with championships. NobutoraTakeda 03:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that whatever Britannica publishes online is just reprinted from its paper source rather than trying to do something different like Wikipeida. As an aside, do [[4]] these people have similar arguments like this?XinJeisan 03:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course they do. That's what being a professor is all about: Sitting around a table all day arguing with your colleagues. The many congresses and parliaments of the world, even the United Nations can't get anything done without getting into silly arguments...so why would the editors af an encyclopedia be able to? Calgary 03:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't you have an article about chess that covers the rules in the chess page and put the other stuff in its own page instead of making the chess page just a glorified directory of other pages? Aren't the rules of chess one of the most important things to understanding it and therefore needed on the page? NobutoraTakeda 03:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LENGTH. Orderinchaos 04:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the chess page is already far over (more than double; it's 70 KB) the recommended size limit (which is 32 KB) now, let alone if more was added. Standard procedure when this happens is to split topics off into subarticles and cover them in the main article in summary form only with a link to the in-depth article. UOSSReiska 04:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference, this page is already 82KB long.....XinJeisan 04:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And most of the page is not needed. So whats your point? Chop and add. If the basic rules can't go on the main page of a game then there is a huge problem. The rules are the most important part of the game and are vital to understanding the game. NobutoraTakeda 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't just 'chop and add' a featured article. UOSSReiska 18:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-written article, FIDE rules noted as a source. Verifiable and notable subject. Written to inform and not advocate. —C.Fred (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    there was never a question of sources, notability or advocacy. The question was at the time of nomination that the article consisted solely as an instruction manual on how to play chess.--Crossmr 16:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well written, covers subject, subject is notable. This article is not an instruction manual, but more a discussion of the rules of chess (as a subject), elaborating what they are, how they came about, etc. One would not necessarily be any more able to play chess after reading this article, but one would certainly understand the subject a bit more. Orderinchaos 04:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How could you not know how to play chess after reading this? It takes you from starting a game, to ending and instructs on all legal moves and rules.--Crossmr 16:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most overzealous and unhelpful interpretations of WP:NOT I've ever seen and I've seen plenty. This is interpreting two words in a frequently ambiguously worded policy, and the sections on History and Controversy clearly make this not "just a game guide". And does the nominator really have to reply to every single editor recommending keep? --Canley 13:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Its a debate not a vote. If anyone raises a point, I'm free to discuss it. NOT doesn't address "just x". The bulk of the article is still an instruction manual on how to play the game. Put 3 lines of history about subject X, doesn't give you license to write whatever you want in violation of NOT. It addresses both full articles and content within the articles.--Crossmr 16:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 3 people say delete 3,000 people say keep why are we still discussing this?193.128.87.36 15:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rules_of_chess&oldid=1142311028"