| This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sun_Creator. |
Note: If you leave a message for me here, I will probably respond here, unless you ask for a response on your talk page. WP:ENGVAR, "Strong ties to a topic" applies to biographies. As an example, it would be odd to write "Fischer Defence" at Bobby Fischer. I would expect that Tony Blair would use British spelling, and George W. Bush would use American spelling. Quale (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So far as I can see there is nothing in WP:ENGVAR saying that about biographies. Specifically as I asked before, I want to know where it says biographies are an exception. ChessCreator (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know if Benjamin and Schiller's Unorthodox Chess Openings (Collier; ISBN 0020165900) or Angus Dunnington's Winning Unorthodox Openings (Everyman; ISBN 1857442857) covers unusual replies to Whites 1.e4 or 1. d4, fore example lines like 1.e4 h5, 1.e4 Na6, 1. e4 b5 etc.
I understand that all White's first moves are covered in Dunnington's book, but am unsure if the replies are also. ChessCreator (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Benjamin and Schiller definitely do. Dunnington is more focused on Black's reactions to unusual first moves by White. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chesscreator,
I just wanted to say thank you for helping me, and thank you for all of the support you have given to me and my arcticles! I am quite new to Wikipedia, and just found out how to leave a message! Just wanted to let you know that I really appreciate all your help!
Are there any arcticles on chess (prefferably openings) that need work? If so, I would be happy to do my best!
Please respond to my account, as I am still not quite sure how I stumbled apon yours! :)
Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesslover96 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Thanks, I think I understand the art of sending messages! :).
I know of a larger site with more of Schiller's Book. I will send it to you soon. I also email with Eric himself, I will ask him what he knows.
The "Southern Fred" is confusing me. When I arrived, the Fred Defence arcticle stated 2... Kf7?! is "Often called the Southern Fred". I reworded: "Sometimes called the Southern Fred", as I couldn't find anything on it. After more Google searches, I still have not come up with anything! Can you supply any information at all?
I think I joined Wikiproject Chess, but I belive I messed up horribly with my name (I found it in a corner somewhere! :).
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesslover96 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok, see that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudist (talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the Boungcloud Attack is a bit silly. I am a chess.com member, so I guess I cared about it. Delete it if you think it is silly, but if we keep it, let's both try to look around and make sure everyone gets the message that this is bad. The person who posted it here said it was better than 2. Qf3 and 2. Qh5, which is incorrect. Could you help me fix it?
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesslover96 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, do you think the Boungcloud should be deleted, or should it be left? It is already quite famour around the internet, and I heard people talking about it at my chess club.--Chesslover96 (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But what would it be merged with? I don't think we should delete the Boungcloud totally, as it is "notable", and quite famous in internet chess communities such as chess.com, chessgames.com, Yahoo! groups, and Wikipedia.Chesslover96 (talk) 19:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw in your edits to Anderssen's Opening that you took the caps out of some references to White and Black. Our convention is to captalize the words when they are used as a substitute for a player, but not when they are just the color. So it would be "the black pieces" or "the white queen", but "... Black's move was ...", etc. And thanks for your helpwith chess articles. Bubba73 (talk), 03:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just thought I'd let you know that my talkpage has some answers about the content in the Oxford Companion. Krakatoa has posted the main ideas. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section you cite, Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Section_headings, says that "Notes" is preferred. Quale (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly it doesn't say "Notes" is preferred. If it does please point out exact where you read that to. Quote it in full for clarity. Secondly, as both are acceptable why are you changing it back? ChessCreator (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the section saying Footnote is a recommended section name.
- =====Section headings=====
- Recommended section names to use for footnotes in Wikipedia are:
- ==Notes==
- ==Footnotes==
- ==References==
- ChessCreator (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
