Talk:Lichess

Alexa rank

Can some one update it to #1171? I can't change it because I'm still new to wikipedia and this page is semi-protected. Geekpotato24 (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

A little late but I updated it to the current rank - Beeveria

Title should not be italicized

There is no reason why the title of this page should be italicized. I don't know how to change it, so hopefully someone else does. FinalForm (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:ITALICTITLE --2605:6000:1019:802D:F581:80B0:CC6B:DF4C (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I fixed this by removing the second infobox. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks! FinalForm (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

User Boxes for Lichess

Hi fellows, I created a couple of userboxes for Lichess you can use here:

This user is a member of Lichess.

Template:User LiChess

This user plays on Lichess.org as {{{1}}}.

Template:User LiChess1

IQ125 (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone make a new userbox using the new logo? Geekpotato24 (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

No reliable sources for the majority of this page

Therefore it should be deleted --76.210.190.130 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. wp:Primary sources can be used: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." And the article does have wp:secondary sources. There is nothing commercial about Lichess, so I don't see any reason to delete the article, or even to remove neutral verifiable content from it. - DVdm (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Point of edit?

I failed to see the point of this anon edit, so I undid it. Anon reverted it, calling my undo "disruptive editing". Anon, please explain how my undo was disruptive? - DVdm (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

My edit is a good faith copyedit (CE) of the overall flow and format of the structure of the article. History and overall context of an article’s subject is usually given before before its esoteric features and details. This section, history, also has the most hope in receiving support and citation, and thus demands precedence. Feel free to revert my edits with reasoning beyond calling them pointless when there is clearly a point. --76.210.190.130 (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why Financials should be a subsection of History. If you undo that part, I have no objection to the edit. - DVdm (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done--76.210.190.130 (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Extensive coverage of tournaments with no independent reliable sources

The consensus is that this article should not include a table of Lichess tournaments based on primary sources.

Cunard (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Looks like my removal of the giant table based on 0 independent reliable sources was undone. The only thing that should come from the site itself are the most basic facts. A tournament existing, or editor-determined criteria like "it has a prize" or "it had notable people participating" aren't reasons for including anything. We include aspects of a subject based on how well those aspects are covered in the body of reliable independent sources about the subject. In this case, that proportion is zero. Including a long list of tournaments just because they exist is WP:PROMO and WP:UNDUE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Peehape we don't need the entire listing, but it should at least be briefly mentioned. Benjamin (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

...So it's still growing. Do we really need an RfC to sort out basic wikipolicy? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Lichess article include a table of Lichess tournaments sourced only to Lichess?

This article has long had a big table of "Lichess Titled Arena" tournaments/participants/results. It is sourced only to Lichess itself. I've twice removed it and was twice reverted (last time here). It's come to an RfC, I guess.

Should this article include a table of Lichess tournaments based on primary sources? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• No, obviously, as proposer. It's just promotional detail. We need coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject for anything included here, especially in that much detail. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• No. I noticed that the section had been re-added and that people were regularly adding to it, but did not care enough to discuss it until now. We shouldn't double the size of the article to add primary-sourced online tournament results. If there is RS coverage of the tournament, it could be briefly mentioned somewhere in the article. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coverage of Tournaments

Information about past winners of Lichess Titled Arenas is no different than information about past winners of ordinary sporting events. Including the history of these tournaments hurts no one, and while a discussion was created on this topic, no substantial or thorough discussion was had. Removing the section about past winners helps no one-- the section clearly does not fall under the kind of misuse that WP:PROMO and WP:UNDUE were originally intended to address. Can further consideration please be put into this matter?

Almasudi896 (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers things once they've been covered by other independent sources. Coverage of sporting events is based on citations to sources not connected to the teams/leagues themselves. When Lichess events begin getting regular coverage on NBC, CBS, CNN, NY Times, etc. like professional baseball, football, etc., we should include it. Including something just because it exists, without it having been covered first elsewhere, is often going to be promotional. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Be that as it may, this is not "promotional" material. Lichess is an open-source and non-profit entity that of course has no advertisers. The explanation under WP:PROMO states "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising, and showcasing." The inclusion of a section containing information about past winners of sporting tournaments does not by any means fall under those kinds of misuse. A list of winners, even if it links to Lichess itself, does not in any sense constitute advertising or marketing, and it clearly does not constitute anything that might make this Wikipedia page resemble "a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda". While I see the wisdom in your point that, "Including something just because it exists, without it having been covered first elsewhere, is often going to be promotional," this content is clearly not promotional. The section should be included. Almasudi896 (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

There are LOTS of sports that aren't documented to this degree on Wikipedia, because they are lacking significant coverage. If the only place that talks about these Lichess tournaments is Lichess themselves, then they don't belong in Wikipedia. Also, WP:PROMO does explicitly state that the policy applies even in noncommercial instances. --SubSeven (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A separate article has been created for the lichess titled arena. Geekpotato24 (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Lichess Titled Arenas vs. Chess.com Speed Chess Championship

To add to the discussion about whether or not results of titled arenas should be included, it is relevant to note that there is extensive coverage on Wikipedia of e.g. the 2018 Speed Chess Championship. Both events are covered exclusively on the respective chess websites hosting the events, both events include world class players, and the only difference I see is that the latter page may be considered more as promotional material due to the commercial nature of Chess.com. I do not see how keeping one page and removing the other is objectively fair.

And for those unaware of the online chess community, one should note that there is a lot of hostility between them, with one website often refusing to cover events from the other website (or even acknowledge the existence of the other website in the first place). The word "lichess" was banned from Chess.com at some point, and there have been fights between Chess.com and Chess24 over "rebranding" content as their own.[1] An event not being covered by other chess websites does not necessarily constitute "insignificance" of the event. Thijs Laarhoven (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Note that there was a previous RfC at #Extensive coverage of tournaments with no independent reliable sources. If you want to include this you should start a new WP:RFC, but please try to address the comments made there with regard to suitability on Wikipedia. I think the six months between this and the previous one should be adequate; but it really needs some non-primary reliable sources to be likely to succeed. I did find [2] and [3], but I'm not sure whether this is adequate. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mrjulesd. Apologies for my ignorance, I am new here and trying to find my way around -- how does one start a new RFC? As for suitability, as described above I do not see how more details on Chess.com's events are more suitable than more details on Lichess' events; I can live with not having more details on Wikipedia about the Lichess Titled Arenas due to it being site-specific, but then to be consistent and fair also Chess.com's detailed results pages should all be erased. (And if you want an external link for Lichess Titled Arenas mentioning Carlsen's victories, see e.g. [4] and [5] from respectable news websites.) Thijs Laarhoven (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, the instructions are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Let me know if you want more help. An important difference between Chess.com and Lichess is that Chess.com also has a publishing section "news" that (as far as I know) is generally seen as being reliable. So the comparison may not be that helpful. Lichess has a blog, but blogs are not usually seen as reliable. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I hope the below works. As for the Chess.com news page being 'reliable', is it reliable if it structurally attempts to avoid mentioning world-class events played at competitor websites (Chess24, Lichess)? Or if, when it does cover those events, it does not mention or link any primary sources not to let any of its users go to the competitor, and to make the users think these events were actually played on Chess.com? (Then again, as mentioned above this toxicity has been around for a long time, with e.g. the 'reliable' ChessBase doing the same and always avoiding any mention of competitor chess sites.) Thijs Laarhoven (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Lichess article include a table of Lichess tournaments sourced only to Lichess?

Over time various people (presumably mostly new users) have proposed to add a list of titled arena winners to this page, with experienced users rolling back and undoing these edits, marking them as promotional content and primary-source only. An RfC was then held in March 2020 and closed after two members added their opinions, voting against adding such a list.

As stated above, even if the consensus remains that such events are not suitable for Wikipedia, I believe it is inconsistent to then allow for pages such as 2017 Speed Chess Championship and 2018 Speed Chess Championship to exist, with the former having 24 references out of which 24 are to Chess.com, and the latter having 25 out of which 23 are to Chess.com. So I believe the discussion should be reopened, if only to address this inconsistency.

As for the point raised in the previous RfC that this table would double the page length, again this equivalently applies to e.g. 2018 Speed Chess Championship, which is significantly longer than Chess.com.

Regarding external references, as mentioned in Lichess a.o. Forbes, Slate, and Der Spiegel have previously made note of the titled arenas and Carlsen's performance in these events, which suggests there is more interest in these results besides the Lichess community. Thijs Laarhoven (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• No, obviously. We just did this and it's Wikipedia Policy 101 stuff: don't add a bunch of stuff promoting events that happen on a particular website citing only that website. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument (except to draw attention to problems elsewhere). If you see other pages sourced only to the website they're about (and about which there does not exist in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources), feel free to nominate them for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Speed Chess Championship, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Speed Chess Championship — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I honestly do not have a strong preference for either decision, as long as it's applied consistently. Thanks for nominating those other pages. Thijs Laarhoven (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oh. This is yet another SPA advocating to promote Lichess events on Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• No, a particular website citing it does not qualify it as worthy of inclusion. Idealigic (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Reluctant but no for me. I am uncomfortable to see regular online events like these compared to sporting events, because of the difficulty difference between gathering a venue, inviting guests and coordinating staff, which are all potentially trivialized in an online scene both in the effort and costs involved. (Which I am fully aware may appear prejudicial, but is merely a comment on the broad observation across many cases on a case-by-case basis.) Take the linked Speed Chess Championships section on the chess.com page being used as an argument for example, these events all each individually has a full-feature news page on their own blog (one page cited per year in the table rows), as well as YouTube stream supplying coverage, commentary and discussions from professional players, which while one may argue this is a strong commercial taste, it certainly brings them very close to the e-sports scene with all the work that makes the event feel like it has historic value and is content focused on both the audience and the contestants, where as it's difficult to advocate for an average audience to watch (let alone be able to find) full-feature coverage for all of every one of the Lichess tournaments. It's not just about the stakes, but more so that the nature of the events are not at all similar. According to this source: [6], $82,775.00 From 107 Tournaments has been awarded. Is there really value in a full catalogue breaking down all of 80 thousand dollars? In the linked Speed Chess Championships section, a $100,000 tournament gets one line of mention. -- Unihedro (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No rationale provided and unanimous opposition, so speedy close. (non-admin closure) SnowFire (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Lichess → Lichess.org – Domain name visibility Hornbeel3 (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Can you please elaborate on your motivation? The site is often called "Lichess" in our sources.^{[7][8][9][10]} The term "Lichess" is unambiguous contrary to Chess.com which cannot be abbreviated as "Chess" for obvious reasons. The article about Reddit is also not called Reddit.com. —Dexxor (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  Speaking of comparisons, why is chess24.com not titled "chess24"? That seems strange to me, though it's probably a discussion better had for that article's talk page I suppose. Endwise (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  It may be worth starting a move discussion at Talk:Chess24.com about this, Endwise. — Bilorv (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Bilorv: I have taken up this suggestion: Talk:Chess24.com#Requested move 28 March 2022. Endwise (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  May I ask, where did this original not copied article idea originate. How much of rephrasing is accepted on Wikipedia and the similar education system? Hornbeel3 (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Hornbeel3: I'm not quite sure I understand why your question is relevant, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (tertiary source) so we summarise mostly secondary sources without original information of our own (every fact should have a reliable source). At the same time, we must write all content in our own words (with rare exceptional cases), so it can be published under a free license. — Bilorv (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  ok, Do you have tools to verify the own words of a written article? Hornbeel3 (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't really understand the reasoning behind the move either. Secondary sources (above), and even Lichess itself call the website "Lichess". Endwise (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: simpler title, and domain names are better avoided in article titles when possible (this is not possible for Chess.com, as Dexxor says). — Bilorv (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose move. No reason to have the .org in the title. O.N.R. ^(talk) 13:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Domain name visibility" is not a reason for a move, and, as pointed out above, multiple sources, and even the site itself, use the name Lichess. Greenman (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – seems to be a solution looking for a problem. Not broke, fixing not needed, sorry, thanks DBaK (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, what they said. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close per WP:SNOW. No consensus to change title to .org. If you are going to point to Chess.com and why we have .com in their article name, I point you to WP:WAX AND ALSO the fact that Chess.com is literally the name of the website. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.