Template talk:Algebraic notation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Icons

I'm looking to contribute to wikipedia by creating icons. Is this template, used at the beginning of chess articles, one where it would be appropriate to add an icon graphic? Or is it left without one for some purpose, such as style or conformity with a standard? 71.61.180.31 12:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as something that requires an icon. ChessCreator (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit

In the old form, "the article" was ambiguous between the article algebraic notation and the article that called this template. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the second sentence. The first sentence has algebraic chess notation as a piped link. If that's not good enough, just remove the piped link and say "This article uses algebraic chess notation to describe chess moves." Buki ben Yogli (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Font size

Thumperward, 1) how can you argue about font size being "unreadable", when <small> </small> is a standard font option provided to editors and used in various ways in countless WP articles? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The overriding of font sizes is occasionally useful. The existence of the ability to do so does not make it universally appropriate. When the styling of the {{side box}} meta-template already reduces the font size of the text in the box below that of the article text, reducing it again should only be done if there is some practical need or seriously-argued aesthetic point which has consensus. In this case, the change was seemingly arbitrary. More below, though I note with consternation that you wasted no time in reverting to your own preferred version. Sigh. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 04:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, the change to <small> </small> font size was made in attempt to reduce the obtrusiveness of the tag. It was not by consensus, there was no consensus either way, so to that extent it was arbitrary. But the change wasn't without purpose, so to that extent it wasn't arbitrary.

I get your reason that it is too small for usual acceptance. But you have been the only one to comment to-date, on the font size. (I'll increase back to normal font, but the way you increased it, was arbitrary, since you ignored the box length, making 1-line versions now 2-lines, and the 2-line version now 3-lines. Which consumes vertical space needlessly, and one of the criticism by a ChessProj member of the side box is the vertical space it consumes.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, done. (Font size increased to normal size.) Thx again for your input re acceptable sizes, I did not know, and again your input was the only I'd received (even after asking ProjChess members about it). Again, the reason I reverted your change was because the sudden increase in font size, without also lengthening the boxes to accomodate, increased the number of lines of text in each case, and the box widths, unnecessarily and undesirably. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Switching code

Is there really a valid use case for this template having six different styling / placement options? This basically doesn't give any reasons other than that vocal members of WikiProject Chess have some idiosyncratic ideas regarding meta-templates. In particular, there is no precedent at all for this new hybrid "nest with the TOC" styling, nor the hybrid left-aligned, single-line non-floating style which tries to present the template as both a box and an inline pseudo-hatnote at once. WikiProjects should not be cooking up their own template styles when the project as a whole already had a set of well-understood styles which work well enough already.

I would particularly object to Ihardlythinkso's apparent desire to avoid "article-level tags" at all cost. If this were a cleanup tag then yes, more specific placement is usually preferable. But it isn't: it's an information tag, placed at the top of an article so that potential readers are alerted as early as possible to any potential reading difficulties they may encounter in the article body. This apparent misunderstanding seems to have driven the proliferation of styling options, and there wasn't anywhere near enough discussion of whether this was fundamentally the right approach before seemingly hundreds of articles were edited to adopt it.

I'll also note that much of this discussion appears to have been directed solely at WPCHESS members: the opinions of editors who may have wider editing habits than just chess are not to be assigned less weight, and I don't see any of the non-WPCHESS participants of the TfD having been invited to participate in that discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 04:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, you're dumping a lot on me. As far as your first paragraph above, your question is there a valid case for right & left placement options, and article-level, section-level, and diagram-level tags, my own answer is that yes there is a valid case. The single side box you created got objections from ChessProj members. What I've been doing is to try to live with the sidebox you created, but mitigate the complaints about it. Now (I believe) there are no complaints. If your original side box is restored, then the complaints of it would resuface all over again. (Are you familiar w/ the complaints?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, regarding your second paragraph, first, you've got it wrong, it isn't avoiding article-level tags "at all costs", it is avoiding them on bio articles. And, it was not my idea, either, but consensus between two ChessProj members, which I tried to support. (Although it was not my idea, I also think there idea, to avoid article-level tag on bio articles, is a good idea. Because either above the lead subject image, or below it, or to the side of it, all distracts and is obtrusive to the image, after you changed the tag to side box from hatenote. I think in summary that members don't object strongly to your reasoning for changing from hatenote to side box, but, they didn't like the obtrusiveness the side box produced, for bio articles.) Second, the best possible discussion re this point would be between you + Adpete (not you + me). Adpete had the most definitive reasons for not liking the obtrusiveness in bio articles the side box created. Third, there was no "misunderstanding" about anything, as far as I know. The issue is one of *dislike*, by at least three members, for placing a side box at top of article (above, below, or adjacent to the lead image in a bio article). Fourth, regarding there "wasn't anywhere near enough discussion", I'm not sure "how much" is enough in your estimation, or how one would measure or meet a requirement you're thinking of. Also, discussion on this topic by ProjChess is low participation, not many are that interested in it! (So that being the case, is it realisitic to expect more discussion?) Also, members tend to speak up when they do not like something. (So, silence is not meaningless, as far as when changes have been made to the template.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, regarding your third paragraph, the "discussion" you're referring to, stemmed from dissatisfaction by at least a couple ProjChess members with the side box you created out of the TfD. My only involvement was to try and mitigate that dissatisfaction, to live with the side box but make it more palatable for dissatisfied members. Since that explains how the discussion got its life, it honestly did not occur, at least to me, to invite to the discussion a party not concerned about that dissatisfaction issue. (Plus, the whole idea of giving out invitations, presumes a discussion that is lead by someone, as other discussions like TfD and AfD seem to have specific discussion leaders, closers, etc. But there was no leader for this discussion you're referring to ... and it wasn't a formal or even informal discussion per say either ... it was simply me trying to do one thing: address/mitigate complaints/preferences expressed by other ProjChess members about the new side box. THAT lead to changes by me on the template, and, if there were requirements other than expressions of like/dislike by other members of ProjChess who had some care about the matter, I was unaware of that.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, in summary: (1) I'm going to change the font side to normal font size as you suggested, but while changing the box size too to keep the same number of text lines. (2) Your statement here is key: "WikiProjects should not be cooking up their own template styles when the project as a whole already had a set of well-understood styles which work well enough already." Okay, but, as above I think the were valid reasons, and if the orig side box is restored, there will surely be at least a few dissatisfied ProjChess members, since that is the force which evolved your original side box. (The issue was about obtrusiveness, and in particular to lead images in bio articles.) So please say how you would like to proceed to correct things, if things are still wrong. (I have no interest to obstruct WP policy or conventions, and a limited understanding of them as well. But I do have some thoughts, as some other members do too, what helps/hurts the presentation of individual chess articles. [Adpete & Bubba have even more mature ideas than me, since they're seasoned members, while I'm relatively green.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, as mentioned in above section, normal font size has been tested & restored. (Thx again for your input.) About your other issue – the right–left placement options, including what you called "pseudo hatenote" – I tried to give full answers from my limited perspective to all your questions. If all is okay, I'd like to continue re-placing the tag in chess articles, w/ goal of best article presentation utilizing a side box, based on preferences already discussed between Adpete, Bubba, and me. (If that is wrong or ill-advised, I certainly cannot resolve it; so, do you plan to start a new discussion to resolve, or take other action? Of course then I'd want to hold off continuing the effort.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

p.s. "before seemingly hundreds of articles were edited to adopt it." The number of articles for which I've relocated the tag to other than upper-right default location, is to-date about 205 (+/−10). Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, two addendums: 1) I'd like to suggest a chess bio article to look at, so discourse can be specific. Here's a simple case: Levon Aronian. (Where would you want to see a notation side box? On top of Aronian's infobox? At the bottom of it?) 2) One of the outside-ProjChess participants in the TfD said this: "Hmmm. The first place I see this used (taking a random stab) is Judit Polgár. There are over 7,000 words between the (very small, hatnote style) message and the chess notation. I'd venture that the lay reader has forgotten about the tiny text they perhaps-read-but-didn't-understand and the use of the notation. [...] Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)" (His argument was in support of the Algebraic notation hatenote deletion, but wouldn't it apply equally well to any side box placement at top of article Judit Polgar or Levon Aronian?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A very thoughful response: please forgive me if it takes a while to work through it. :) Just a placeholder for now so it doesn't look like I'm ignoring it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, from the top:

1. The "objections from ChessProj members" were certainly to be noted, but within hours of them having been made they'd been accepted and deployed. That wasn't appropriate. Of Bubba72 and Adpete's comments, the only use case which stands out is that of when the tag is deployed down the page, and as I've said that shouldn't have been done in the first place. Moving these templates back to the top of articles would also obviate the need to edit it and fits with the way side boxes are used elsewhere on the project (for instance in {{special characters}}).
2. There is no need to avoid notification templates on bio articles. They are not habitually avoided on the rest of the encyclopedia. WikiProjects should, in general, respect wider consensus rather than cooking up local conventions, and where the argument is "I don't like it" and the consensus in question is basically a discussion between three like-minded editors on a low-participation WikiProject page, it's not exactly a strong argument. The rest of the encyclopedia uses {{side box}} in a mostly unmodified format for all such notifications (most prominently through {{special characters}} and its inheritors), and as such the introduction of a large number of optional new layouts for a notification template shouldn't really be necessary.
3. I'm not trying to point blame in your direction: I do think that you acted very hastily in first adding a lot of options to this template and then deploying them, but that's perfectly okay. My apologies for suggesting that you weren't within your rights to do so.
4. The way forward for me would be to list all of the use cases where an unmodified {{side box}} has an undesirable effect and then to discuss a) whether these are really valid use cases, b) whether these could be mitigated without having to create novel new layouts and placements for the template, and c) whether, if there are valid use cases which would require a new format, {{side box}} itself can be modified to support them, so that the whole encyclopedia benefits.
5. I'd ask that you hold off from deploying your changes further for now until they've been discussed again: it's only a request, and I'm not about to go around reverting you, but it would seem prudent now that there's visible opposition.
6. I said "seemingly hundreds" after perusing your last thousand or so edits and observing how many were related to template placement. I apologise for overestimating that number, though as you've said it is over two hundred.
7. Now we're getting somewhere. We have a well-tested use case for avoiding a clash between notifications and infoboxes: {{infobox language}} is often deployed on articles which have special characters, and it would clash with {{special characters}} if both were used, so {{infobox language}} supports a |notice = yes option to add a notice to the bottom of the infobox itself. That could easily be added to {{infobox chess biography}}, to give the same result as on Nepali language. I'd be happy to code that up.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, I'd like to add that, the dissatisfaction which developed out of changing from hatenote to side box, did not start with bio articles, but for chess articles generally. (Bio considers came later, more restrictive re dissatisfaction with side box in the lead.) Re placement of side box adacent and to right of the TOC, this was agreed by three members (Bubba, Quale, and me) as best possible position for side box (since it exploits unused/dead space rather than increasing the article's vertical space requirement unnecessarily). I also think the next-to-TOC placement is good, because IMO any other placement in the lead detracts more from the article subject box or image. (For example, the TOC is essentially article orientation information, so isn't the notation box of similar purpose, thus logically grouped with the TOC? Rather than placed on top or at bottom of the article subject's info box or image, where it has no similar commonality?) Adpete accepts the next-to-TOC placement too for chess openings articles. (A representative one to look at is: Four Knights Game. There are probably more openings articles than there are bio articles containing chess moves and needing the notation tag, but I'm not sure.) In summary, if you're working a new solution for the notation tag for bios, I wouldn't restrict thought to there, because the original dissatisfaction grew out of openings articles and other articles, not bio articles. (The next-to-TOC solution is pretty much liked; what would be your idea for Four Knights Game if you do not accept it?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, "The 'objections from ChessProj members' were certainly to be noted, but within hours of them having been made they'd been accepted and deployed. That wasn't appropriate." Okay, but I'm not sure what standard of waiting is required, or what the purpose of waiting would have been (waiting for what?). Especially, there is low participation about the tag because there are few ProjChess members who care enough about it to comment (what board on WP is set up to give approval for such thing?; I didn't know or think about any board or editors other than ProjChess members; are you referring to approval from yourself?). And also, because the sudden change from hatenote (article upper left without graphic) to side box (article upper right with intense black & white checkered graphic) caused an immediate kind of disfugurement to all articles using the tag. Anyway, if I acted "inappropriately" I certainly did not know I was doing so, I viewed my actions as collaborative repair, post-side box. Please let me know what channel I was supposed to pursue, because obviously I thought I was pursuing the proper channel already. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Four Knights Game could do with a notice=yes option being added to {{infobox chess opening}}. Again, not too much work.
2. A finite number of different template styles are used on Wikipedia these days to present and simple and consistent appearance to readers and make it easier for new editors to get involved, and creating whole new layouts shouldn't be done lightly.
3. Having been not only the editor who took the template to TfD, but also the one who reimplemented it as a side box, I'd have hoped that someone would at least have let me know that there was ongoing discussion of the matter, especially after said discussion was taken to WPCHESS for further input. Nevertheless that's in the past now.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, after your TfD was rejected, it seemed an afterthought of yours that at the end of the TfD, you would be changing from hatenote to side box (which you did). Since the TfD was closed then, and I'd never seen your participation in ProjChess prior, I'd assumed that was where your interest terminated. Especially, my changes to the template did not wipe out your side box; I simply added options. (So, for new users, {{Algebraic notation}} works the same as you left it. (If the user doesn't pick up on left-right option, or adjacent-to-TOC option, there is no harm done.) At the time in the TfD discussion you said your intent to change to side box, members (e.g. Bubba) did not know exactly what to expect (presentation impact on articles from hatenote). The impact wasn't desirable or liked by those ProjChess members motivated to comment (Bubba, Adpete, me). Or thought it could be improved (Quale). I did so. If you maintained interest, which I did not know, why didn't you see the followup discussions? The fact you weren't interjecting yourself in the followup discussions, made reasonable my assumption that your interest was at an end. So now you express disappointment about my actions to add options, based on ProjChess members input (as well as add the macro template option suggested by Quale for adjacent-to-TOC), and also call my involvement "inappropriate". (Perhaps for you to arbitrarily change the hatenote to side box, then disappear, then come in later after lots of work to mitigate the sudden disfigurement to hundreds of chess articles, then blame me for this-and-that, is a bit "inappropriate" on your part, perhaps?) p.s. Are you now planning more changes, without weighing them first, with other ProjChess members besides myself? The options I added to side box had some input (Bubba, Quale, Adpete). As Admin can you skip that collaboration? (For example, you didn't reply: IMO the algebraic notation alert is "article orientation info", similar to TOC article orientation info. What business does that type/kind/category of info have in the infobox on a particular chess opening, which within the infobox one would expect to be reserved for content info about the article's subject?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, "The way forward for me would be to list all of the use cases where an unmodified {{side box}} has an undesirable effect and then to discuss a) whether these are really valid use cases, b) whether these could be mitigated without having to create novel new layouts and placements for the template, and c) whether, if there are valid use cases which would require a new format, {{side box}} itself can be modified to support them, so that the whole encyclopedia benefits." All very abstract and grandiose, and probably also good and healthy too. But is it theoretic, or real? (Does your phrase "would be" mean "will be"? And if so, what is timeline for initiation? And where will the discussion(s) be located?) Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Outdenting:

1. TfD is "templates for discussion": while that discussion usually centres on deletion, alternative proposals are often put forward and discussed as well. I brought up the possibility of reimplementing as a side box only two days into the discussion, and it's not my fault that the various WPCHESS types who piled on afterwards did not take the time to consider what this would result in over the rest of the week (they had the whole week to ask me, or check for themselves). I took the lack of disagreement for this approach to indicate that it was worth trying rather than that people had simply not bothered looking into it having done their duty in "saving" it.
2. Your "new options" essentially eliminated the benefits of using a side box (i.e. consistency). It is unclear what exactly you believed that taking the new style and laying it out like a hatnote (or "hatenote": I am still unclear as to why you seem to prefer this spelling) was preferable, other than as a worst-of-both-worlds compromise.
3. I didn't see the followup discussions because I was busy on other things (while I try to keep track of the talk pages of things I edit, I can surely be excused for not keeping track of all of them at once). Had the discussion remained on this template talk then so be it, but it was then moved to WPCHESS (presumably for further input) without any seeming interest in notifying those other participants in the TfD who weren't active at WPCHESS. I'm prepared to accept that this was simply an oversight, but it could have been taken to be a deliberate attempt to move the conversation out of a general discussion area and into an insular one where editors wouldn't need to be pestered by "outsiders". I would hope in future that any parties watching this would take that on board.
4. Whether I'm an admin or not is utterly irrelevant here. I'm acting and commenting as a regular editor. I would hope that you would not try to use my admin status as some sort of wedge here when I am not abusing said status in this discussion.
5. "Article orientation info, similar to TOC article orientation info" is not at all clear to me. The TOC is not "orientation info". Special notices regarding potentially confusing content ate almost entirely handled by {{side box}} at this time. I have yet to see an argument for why this is particularly different from {{special characters}}.
6. The discussion on how to move forward is here and now. My opinion is that the new layout options are unnecessary and that the way forward would be to a) roll back the placement changes pushed out in the last month, b) move any mid-article transclusions to the top of articles and c) where necessary modify the chess infoboxes so that where the template would clash with an infobox the two could be merged. I see this as wholly analogous to {{special characters}}, which is handled in exactly that manner.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 04:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, I'm pretty darn sick at this point, of the implied or surmised accusations. Please stop! (For examples, "hatenote" was simple oversight, I needn't explain why; the fact I used that spelling more than once is explained by simple consistency. And I already explained why invitations were not sent to non-ChessProj editors, I gave two honest reasons; now, you like to suppose potential conspiracy! Are we paranoid here, or what? Why is it you cannot accept honest, good-faith answers? I tire of the discussion with you unless you drop this kind of stuff. And also, I refuse to continue repeating answers I've given (I've already explained the evolution of the side box placement options, the reasons, now you ask again as if I never explained), or continuing this discussion generally, as sole representative of ProjChess. There need to be other members here, not only me! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Another baseless implied accusation: that I somehow have intentioned to "use your Admin status" as some sort of "wedge". When I asked about your skipping other ProjChess members input for collaboration here, and if it stemmed from you being Admin, it was only a question, because I don't/didn't know. I'm relatively new WP editor and slowly learning the culture here. Your baseless and paranoid implied accusation was "not appropriate". And on and on with more you go. Is there any doubt why I tire of this? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I call the TOC "orientation info" because, like a book Table of Contents, it is there to assist the reader to find his way through the entire article, if needed. Same for Algebraic notation tag. (It helps the reader, if needed, to understand notation of chess moves used within the article.) These are concepts which belong together IMO, and thus, the Algebraic notation alert has no more business being in the article subject (e.g. bio or opening) info box, than the TOC. (Neither has any connection to the article subject itself.) I assume this lengthly, repeat explanation will enough. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, you didn't respond to this, are you dismissing it or disagreeing with it? (Just curious on your position. Please don't read any conspiracy into my question.) I'll repeat-copy it here, it is input from one of the non-ProjChess members in the TfD: "Hmmm. The first place I see this used (taking a random stab) is Judit Polgár. There are over 7,000 words between the (very small, hatnote style) message and the chess notation. I'd venture that the lay reader has forgotten about the tiny text they perhaps-read-but-didn't-understand and the use of the notation. [...] Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)" (His argument was in support of the Algebraic notation hatnote deletion, but wouldn't it apply equally well to any side box placement at top of article Judit Polgar or Levon Aronian?)

BTW, your suspicion there might be some meaning (suspicion enough to ask) in patterned oversight-misspelling of "hatnote", is further unjustified, because if you look in the record of discussion, you'll find that I was asking members what was wrong with the original hatnote, and why it was changed. (I later got answer by re-reviewing your input in the TfD, and reading the articles on hatnote usage; agreeing w/ your assessment that hatnote is reserved for dab use. But ChessProj members liked it [still do I presume] because it is inobtrusive as H. Also, it can be used at section-level too. [Adpete.] And there was this input in the TfD from Sjakkalle also: "The assertion that "Hatnote-style text should be reserved for proper disambiguation templates" is too restrictive. The WP:HAT guideline says that hatnotes are "normally to help readers locate a different article they might be looking for when they arrived at the article in which the hatnote is placed" (emphasis on "normally" is mine) so it doesn't preclude other useful applications.") Clearly there is room for more discussion here with other ProjChess members, and as already mentioned I am disinclined to continue to discuss solo with you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, the general theme of collaboration which lead to the new placement options, is simple: to put the notation tag where it's needed. (At top of article for most openings articles; at section-level for moves down deep in an article; and I added diagram-level option myself when moves aren't represented even in sections, but limited to even a single chess diagrem [see Wilhelm Steinitz.) So the theme was clear and simple: put the tag where it's needed. (Alternate applications deemed inefficient, as well as unnecessarily detracting from article subject, e.g. in bio articles.) Your predilection for side box universality in WP, is beautiful from standpoint of policy–guideline consistency, however, it introduces little anomilies such as what I've pointed out already: 1] at top of article is less useful and maybe not useful for algebraic moves buried deep in the article, as per Aaron Brenneman. 2] to combine with openings or bio info boxes joins information together – article "orientation" info with article content info – which do not belong. (IMO, when policies/guidelines are counter to the best interest of individual article presentations, then that signals it is time to review or adjust the policies. But I know you see it differently – ala "one-size-fits-all", and, I will not debate that mindset here.) I hope this is enough further explanation for you to carry on now, with drawing in greater participation from the other ProjChess members who care, because, I refuse to fly solo here, especially in light of the un-asked-for, baseless blames and suspicions put in my lap. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, your argument "I have yet to see an argument for why this is particularly different from {{special characters}}", seems illogical to me, because it presupposes, that the policy/guideline for special characters is correct and flawless. (I wouldn't have opinion on it, unless I reviewed it. I haven't reviewed it. But why should I need to, to weigh in opinion what is in best interest for chess articles and notation alert?) I do not make similar assumption, as you do, the decision made regarding special characters, whatever the decision was or who made it, was correct. (To me it's a simple matter of grouping things having commonality together, ala "What doesn't belong [here]?" from Sesame Steet. [No offense implied; that's just to illustrate the point.] There is no "article orientation" info currently in bio or chess openings info boxes; so why on earth introduce something that "doesn't belong", that also has other drawbacks as far as noticabiliy when needed? But I would agree whole-heartedly that including the alien info in the info boxes, is superior to posturing a separate side box either above or below the lead image/info box. [It's just not the best solution for chess articles.]) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the Nepali language article, and it seems to me that article is about a language, so, a special characters alert in the article subject info box may indeed be appropriate for that article; it wouldn't be "alien" information in the info box. (Not true with chess bio or chess openings articles. The content of a chess bio, or of a chess opening, has no bearing or relationship at all to the notation alert tag; the notation alert tag is an interpretive "FYI" piece of orientation or interpretation assist for the entire article, or parts of the article where chess moves occur, and are not related to the topic or subject of the article at all, which is what should be reserved for inside the lines which define the info box for the article topic/subject. (Again to illustrate a point, even Sesame Street kids could point out "What doesn't belong here?" if I showed them a bio or openings info box containing interpretive "FYI" algegraic notation alert info within the box. So IMO I agree with them – it doesn't belong.)

And again, Brenneman's point, that top-of-article notice separated by 7,000 words until chess moves occur, separating the two by a distane which renders the top-of-article alert essentially useless or forgotten, is an anomaly of top-of-article placement for the alert, which you didn't respond to. (I.e., what would be your answer to Brennamen?)

"6.The discussion on how to move forward is here and now. My opinion is that the new layout options are unnecessary and that the way forward would be to a) roll back the placement changes pushed out in the last month, b) move any mid-article transclusions to the top of articles and c) where necessary modify the chess infoboxes so that where the template would clash with an infobox the two could be merged. I see this as wholly analogous to {{special characters}}, which is handled in exactly that manner." Negative on (a). Since the changes introducing left-or-right and next-to-TOC options were developed thru consensus with four ProjChess members, and you identify yourself as only a contributing editor regarding these topics, then what basis would I have to "roll back" the options liked and arrived at thru collaboration by said ProjChess members, who cared enough to participate by expressing preference? Right now without further discussion involving more than you + me, no way. I would roll-back the changes no problem if the interested parties in ProjChess were in consensus about it. The options came about thru consensus. Why should it be reverted without consensus? You have not received or solicited response from the other ProjChess members, you have simply been discussing with me in isolation. There were reasons things evolved the way they did after your change to side box. I've explained them all in detail. I've questioned and disagreed with your preferences, and you've been mostly unresponsive specifically, but deferring to other generalized applications of other alerts in WP for other uses and catagory of articles like languages. The two applications are different so one should not be surprised that inclusion of interpretive "FYI" info into an infobox can have a different net result. To me your arguments are flawed and therefore unconvincing. Again if other ProjChess members agree with you, I have no problem to roll-back. But we do not have their voices here, just mine. So no. (I never acted independently from ProjChess members preferences, once I understood them, so, why should I begin now? Unless as Admin you are demanding it. But you made clear your Admin status is irrelevant, that you are just contributing editor here. The options I added to the side box template came out of ProjChess consensus, to a point of successfully mitigated dissatisfaction. Why would I suddenly revert that evolution, without consensus, especially where I can't even agree with your arguments or proposals, ala Brenneman, and ala mixing differently-natured infos in the same info boxes? To me, as already mentioned, your proposal to combine is superior than side box hovering somewhere around the article info box, but, is still not best solution for chess articles. Given a side box, what I think we have now is best, again simply because the interpretive helpful "FYI" info provided by the notation alert is applied when & where it's needed. Your proposal can distance the alert from where it's needed by potentially great distances, and also introduces an alien-natured item into a bio or opening info box, which should be reserved for article content items only. So not only is consensus lacking for roll-back, but I for one cannot agree with the soundness of your idea-proposal to replace the side box options. Yet you are expecting me or wanting me to act anyway, apparently, to get what you want instead, when I don't agree, and there are no voices from other ProjChess members. You can't and shouldn't try to make me the sole voice of the project to justify what you want. Seeing that my actions flowed from from a collaboration with other members dissatisified with the side box as you left it.)

p.s. You lead me to believe you would be coding up the "easy-to-do" info box and biography box notice=yes options, for trial. Now it appears you've modified that plan, and your new plan asks for roll-back to the orig side box status you left after the TfD, which was the source of all the dissatisfaction. (I don't know why you changed your plan, now asking for complete roll-back, before you code your suggested replacement options for trial and show. To make that plan it seems you are presupposing ProjChess members' agreement with whatever replacement option, if any, you might provide. And none of that is clear at all.)

I have already "touched" a number of chess articles with the next-to-TOC placement, prior to coding that placement in the Algebraic notation template per Quale's recommendation. I was in the middle of converting the sequence of four templates which create next-to-TOC placement of the tag, from the four template sequence, to the single parm Algebraic notation template option which generates the sequence of four. I would like to continue to simplify said chess articles. (I was half-way done with that effort, before you dropped by to revert font size and make Edit summary comment, that you were not going to comment on the "over-engineering" of the template.) If there is subsequently a roll-back of these added options, it will be better that I complete what I was doing, so in the articles I "touched", they are all one way, not a mess of way which was inter-evolution of the template options development. After I finish simplifying the articles already "touched", I will not extend the options to different articles never "touched" with the new template options. (And, there are many hundreds of those articles, I'm sure.) Any roll-back then will be cleaner to do, since there won't be any "sequence of four" templates to delete, there will only be one Algebraic template in their place, specifying an option, which could even be nullified/turned-off in the template code, to not recognize that option and instead default to the orig side box – the orig template without option specified. Therefore, there is no harm done by my continuing doing what I was doing, and in fact it makes any future roll-back cleaner and more efficient, therefore, I expect you will not have any problem with this activity and will not revert. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, Question: for articles which are neither chess bios nor chess openings (and so have no info boxes), where would you place the notation tag if you feel next-to-TOC placement (which utilizes dead space and is separated from the lead image which it is not related to, and is favored by Bubba, Quale, me; I'm not sure about Adpete in this case, perhaps he would want it pushed down into article section[s] or a hatnote instead, I'm not sure) is improper? (For e.g., articles First move advantage in chess and Checkmate. And of course there are many, many others.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that reply is simply unmanageably long (nearly 3000 words), and does little IMO to actually address the technical / process points I was making. With such a severe communication barrier, it'd be best simply demonstrating my proposal by carrying it out. I'm going to do what I can to mitigate the potential for awkward placement with infoboxes as I suggested, and then migrate instances of this template to the in-infobox style as I see them. Once that's done, the discussion of options can be readdressed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments: You fail to answer specific, good-faith questions the first time, then when I re-ask, you fail to answer again! Instead producing reasons/excuses for not answering. Frustrating! (You call this "discussion"?!) I'm wondering what your objectivity can really be in this, seeing your original purpose for opening the TfD was to get the algebraic notation template deleted, and that failed. Your first plan involved entire "roll-back" of the new template options, I responded no on that and asked why you weren't going with your first plan to prepare and show. Now I see you're returning to the first plan as though it is new. "The discussion of options can be readdressed"? Discussion with whom?! Do you anticipate other ProjChess members participation at that point? (I've mentioned already I'm disinclined to continue as sole member of ProjChess in discussion with you. I will support whatever ProjChess members want.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Where are you proposing to place the notation alert in articles like Knight (chess), First move advantage in chess, and Checkmate that is better than where the notation tags are currently? (A simple question.)

How would you respond to Aaron Brenneman's argument in the original TfD, if you propose the same distance between the notation alert from where it is needed (article Judit Polgár)? (Another simple question.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason I "ignored" your questions is because my eyes had glazed over due to the wall of over two full pages of text (on a widescreen monitor) preceding them. For Knight (chess), First move advantage in chess, and Checkmate there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the top right corner as with pages which use {{special characters}}, and the personal aesthetic opinions of three members of WPCHESS are hardly sufficient justification to invent a completely new template orientation and start rolling it out to over two hundred articles. For Aaron Brenneman's comment, the simple response is "that's insufficient grounds to invent a new template style": Readers are, at this point, conditioned to look to the top right of an article for certain pieces of content, specifically explanatory images, summary infoboxes and notice templates. Your apparent proposal is that they instead be conditioned to look to the right of the table of contents, which is an entirely new place to put any template, or to look for a template with a unique appearance which shows up at random distances down an article. I firmly disagree that this is the best way forward. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Your characterizations are odd in several ways. (1) "... or to look for a template with a unique appearance which shows up at random distances down an article." Those templates are placed where they're needed, so no one will have any need at any time to be "looking for" the template. And the "random distances down an article" are not random - the templates are used when and where they're needed. And because they're applied where they're neeed, "distances" are irrelevant. And I do not know what you are referring to when you say "unique appearance" - you designed the side box, didn't you? Since then, the text has remained the same, and the chessboard icon was retained but reduced in size and softened in color. All options of the side box are the same in those respects. (2) "... insufficient grounds to invent a new template style". Again, the template style is largely unchanged from what you provided. By "style" do you mean placement (location)? (3) "Your apparent proposal is that they instead be conditioned to look to the right of the table of contents ..." The side box at right of TOC stands out to such degree, that Adpete even complained, saying it assumed equal significance to a much larger TOC! There is no "conditioning" necessary, that placement pops out nearly excessively. To fear a reader might not find it in that location unless he's "reconditioned", is absurd. (4) "... there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the top right corner, ... and the personal aesthetic opinions of three members of WPCHESS are hardly sufficient justification ...". It isn't just aesthetics! Any Newspaper knows that most-important news article goes upper-right on their front page. The point I think you are missing is that although the notation template was decided necessary by ProjChess members, its importance is low, and it should not lay claim to undue importance thru either its appearance and/or placement. When the notation tag detracts from an article subject image or infobox, that siphens attention away from the article subject itself, thus stealing away some of its importance. So your use of word "esthetics" to mean beauty or artistic taste (or whatever), is incorrect and inappropriate and shows you miss the point. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

1. I'm prepared to accept that moving the template down the page could be preferably where it is used only in one specific section, or late on in an article. I still don't see that it is necessary to change its width, alignment or floating.
2. I meant width, alignment and floating, all of which are modified by the present options in various configurations.
3. It is nevertheless highly nonstandard, and the arguments given for its invention are very weak. Were there to be a wider consensus that placing templates there is a good idea then so be it: however, it shouldn't be adopted lightly.
4. It doesn't need to be in the very top corner. It can obviously remain subordinate to infoboxes and key images if required. None of that requires modification of the template. However, if it is required to understand the article then it should still be placed prominently, and in the same place as templates with a similar purpose.
5. If aesthetics have nothing to do with it, why are there fully six configuration options here? Why has the default right-handed placement been so thoroughly avoided? Why is there an option which makes the template pseudo-inline by flattening it to one line and breaking to remove the float? At least part of that seems to have stemmed from comments that the default styling is "ugly".

On a different note, I played with the idea of a new inline template similar to {{IPA-en}} which could be used to replace these notices entirely, but I'm not sure how practical it is at this time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward, it seems most useful if I just respond to your 5th point. Re "ugliness": The only change I made meant to address comment re ugliness, was to reduce the size of chessboard icon, and soften its color. Re: "Why is there an option ... flattening it to one line...". One line simply avoids eating up vertical space unnecessarily. Bubba had expressed disapproval for extending an article's vertical length unnecessarily on account of tag placement (that is a reason adjacent-to-TOC is favored where it utilizes deadspace), and if the tag is inline and consumes vertical space unavoidably, a one-liner at least minimized that consumption. (So it's economy, not esthetics.) Re: "Why are there six options?" There is a tag for use in the lead ("article-level"), a tag for use in a section ("section-level"), and tag for use in conjunction with a chess diagram ("diagram-level"). The article-level tag has text "This article ...", the section-level tag has text "This section ...", the diagram-level tag has text "This example ...". So the three level options was driven by the tag language. (If the language texts aren't different, then there'd be no need for three, only one. I was supporting the current use of word "article" without trying to change it. I deemed "This article ..." to be inappropriate language for use when referring to chess moves contained in a section, or chess moves contained in a diagram only. Was I wrong?) Each of the three, has right- and left-placement options. (So of course, 3*2=6.) Re: "Why has the default right-handed placement been so thoroughly avoided?" I think you mean this question for only the article-level tag? (Because I've used right-placement for section- and diagram-level tags, but seldom if ever at article-level.) The option is there for use if editors want. The reason it isn't preferred is out of consensus between Bubba & Adpete & myself, and has already been pointed out several times. (I.e., for article-level in non-bio articles, adjacent-to-TOC is preferred to upper-right, because it utilizes deadspace so as not to consume article vertical space unnecessarily, and it gets out of the hair of a lead image or infobox where it finds no commonality and tends to detract from the article subject. But for bio articles adjacent-to-TOC is still seen as too obtrusive, so we like to move down to section level, which typically is a single section called "Notable games".) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
p.s. Regarding width differences of the side box, the section-level being one line explains longer width of course; the diagram-level tag is for use with chess diagrams only, so, I shortened the language text in order to shorten the box, in order to be more appropriate width for use with either large or small diagrams.

Thumperward, glad you're open to tag occuring down in the article where it's needed. (When you have time, take a look at bio article Richard Hopkins (chess player). I think there is enough info in upper-right corner in that article already! The tag is applied in section with the chess moves – when and where it's needed – I don't know how that placement could be improved; IMO any other placement would be dis-improvement; IMO it's perfection.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)