Portal talk:Chess/News

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dates or not?[edit]

Joe started this discussion at my talk page. So, I think the news items need the dates. I added them because there were so many items that I thought that many of them must already be outdated. Finding more information about outdated news could prove difficult. Besides, doesn't the term news imply that the items should be new? :) Say you read a news item you haven't heard of before and go make yourself an idiot in front of your friends who tell you that it's, like, so last year, or something. ;) You could have avoided that had you known the item was in fact published two months ago. --ZeroOne 18:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, it's alright for "moribund" news to remain; in portal space (cf., at Current sports events, 2006 in sports, or n:Portal:Sports), to my mind, it is best to include only the most significant occurrences (instead of relegating them for those that we might generally see as less significant or those apropos of subjects for which we don't have stand-alone articles, even where the significant occurrences are covered in ostensibly trivial detail) inasmuch as portals serve generally to cover broader themes, such that new users who happen upon the portal from the main page might undertake to become Wikipedians and edit articles, having first learned more about/learned of the existence of chess-related articles, in view of the broad treatment of chess news. FWIW, a less restrictive system was essayed when first this portal was created (and also at several other sports and games portals, toward which, see, e.g., Portal:American football/News and Portal:Baseball/News) but seemed to be disfavored as inappropriately depreciating the encyclopedic tone of the portal. As to the exclusion of dates, I preferred such system principally for aesthetic reasons; perhaps inexplicably, I find the inclusion of such dates to be unseemly. Notwithstanding that, though, and in view of the divergence of views—evidenced by the many different ways in which our portals treat news sections—with respect to the inclusion of dates, I don't see them as doing any particular harm. The removal of "outdated" news, though, is, I think, a different issue. Joe 22:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
"A less restrictive system" I'm not following — how does the current system restrict anything? I'm all for adding any kinds of chess news items but currently the news section looks too crowded to me. I would at least limit the amount of links in the news articles, possibly only by linking the names of people and events. Linking years, nationalities and that Grandmaster for the tenth time is bad for readability. Another way would be to shortly describe the news and give links to a longer descriptions, which could even exist in Wikinews. Defining an outdated news item is another challenge. To avoid this, we might just agree to a certain number of news items, like five. The old news should, in my opinion, be archived. However, I find managing archive pages cumbersome, so an easy solution would be to add <noinclude></noinclude> tags around the oldest items. :) Then add <includeonly>Archived news</includeonly> right before the <noinclude> tag. Presto! --ZeroOne 00:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Less restrictive system was with respect to what I understood Zero to be suggesting, viz., that extant "less significant" events should be favored over less-than-contemporaneous "more significant" events—especially those for which we've articles. The current system, IMHO, and recapitulating my comments supra, properly conforms to strong encyclopedic standards.
  • As to archiving, I've not had a problem maintaining any of the archive pages for any of the other Portal:Chess subpages, so I expect I'd be able to maintain an archive, but, contra my own inclinations, most portals do not archive news; this perhaps is an issue best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Portal.
  • As to overlinking, there are probably some that would be disfavored by MoS, but, unfortunately, chess items are rather poorly covered at Wikinews, such that there are no stories to which to link.
  • As to limiting items, this once more is something apparently practiced very infrequently vis-à-vis portals, although, to be sure, the fact of that practice shouldn't preclude our limiting items, but might militate against such limit, at least prior to our determining a meta-policy at Wikipedia talk:Portal, although, as at this talk page, I imagine very few would partake of the discussion; standardization across portals isn't something about which people are particularly worried.
There will, I think, be a few chess items to be added in the next few days (e.g., Dortmund), and I'll try to format them (and refactor the news section) consistent with Zero's suggestions; of course, if Zero or anyone else wants to try rewriting or reformatting the news section or undertaking such formatting changes for forthcoming news items, that'd be great (I don't mean to sound as though I own the portal; to the contrary, I mean to convey that the portal is likely riddled with evidence of my idiosyncracies, since I've done almost all of the maintaining of the past few months—with which I am, I suppose, okay—such that others might want wholly to rework the news, since my writing tends toward the overbearing and—surprisingly—unnecessarily verbose. Joe 01:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Zero recently removed a good deal of linking from the news items, and I think most of his removals to have been altogether correct; I can't believe I linked, to name three, year, September, and online. I did return, though, links to each of the nationalities as well as to the first use of each chess title and of draw (chess) in each item.

I think it's reasonable that a reader might desire to visit the article about the nation a player represents, and, more importantly, I think the linking of the nationality to be consistent with our practice in biographies passim (each news item does contain more names in a paragraph than might any average article, so I understand that such items appear as overlinked, but I don't think the linking to be particularly distracting, and I think, in any event, that the link density within the news section has been consistent over time).

Because, in view of their relative insignificance, more recent news items might be removed even as older items are kept, I think it sensible that we link the first use of any title or nation in each item, lest the item(s) referencing such titles or nations should. be removed prior to those containing such references. Draw (chess) is a closer question, but in view of the distinction between the typical sports-related usage (tie (draw)) and the chess usage (at least as regards how a draw entails), I think such linking to be quite fine and useful.

I raise the issue here, though, because I'm certain that others think differently, and, in view of my previous (clear) overlinking, I'm not the best authority on this sort of thing (incredibly, I've always thought it better than we follow Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context than that we follow Wikipedia:Build the web). Joe 23:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed links to nationalities pretty much exactly since we use such links in all biographical articles, as you put it in your edit summary. I think that if a reader wants to know more about the player's nationality, he could click the player's name and then the nationality link.
I also assumed some knowledge of the subject from the reader. Imagine I didn't know anything about chess. The news section would just look uninteresting to me; I'd be looking for playing instructions. After reading them I'd play some chess and then come back. By that time I'd know very well what's a draw (chess) and wouldn't need it to be a link. Go to some other portal and see how their news appear to you if you do not know the subject.
I guess the point about linking the first occurrence of a given term, such as International Grandmaster, in each item is something I just have to cope with... I see it would be cumbersome to add/remove new/old links from existing items every time you added a new item. --ZeroOne 00:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Length of news items[edit]

The other editors seem to prefer lengthy and wordy explanations of the recent news. However, I feel that the actual piece of news is buried in these words and I'd like to keep these items short, some five lines at most. Maybe we could create short summaries here and longer stories into Wikinews Category:Chess? --ZeroOne (talk | @) 18:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)