Talk:Oxford University Chess Club
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.jpg/70px-Radcliffe_Camera_(2005).jpg) |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, which collaborates on articles related to the University of Oxford. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of Mid importance within University of Oxford. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 12 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
[edit] Oldest university chess club in the UK.
I have reverted back to the allocated source. If anyone considers this source is too trvial please raise it here and try to achieve a consensus. BlueValour 19:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- This fact is also mentioned on the official website, at least it is not controversial. Voorlandt 19:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Quite, fact tags should only be used where the fact is likely to be contested. I have added the university reference also. BlueValour 19:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, I think it's unlikely to be controversial, so I didn't remove it, but I am concerned that you need to find better sources. Sorry, but trivia sites that only include the barest information? That's not what I would say is a good, reliable source. I can't even find a description of the person who is responsible for the site's content. But since you object, I've put it up on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. And if you want to reword it to say "they claim to be the oldest" that would make using their own website acceptable. FrozenPurpleCube 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Also, your understanding of the use of {{fact}} is not correct. There is no requirement that the information be seriously questioned, and if you check the talk page, there is a person who says it should be used when "This tag should be used for statements and editor either 1)knows to be accurate, but doesn't have a source or 2)doesn't have the knowledge or resources to verify it's factuality, but has no good reason to doubt its accuracy. If an editor comes across a statement they have good reason to think is false, and that statement is unsourced, they should simply remove such a statement not tag it." . If I did believe it to be false, I'd have removed it. But I can accept that it is true. So you just need to look for a better source. FrozenPurpleCube 19:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Refimprove tag
I am (re-)adding the {{refimprove}} tag as the reliability and independence of a number of sources used in the article was questioned during the article's AfD. Though some of the criticisms can be and were disputed, others are quite straightforward. Even if one were to put aside all of the criticisms raised at the AfD, the references are still incomplete, requiring various pieces of information (e.g., page numbers, access dates) before they can become definitively identified. The type of information required varies with the nature of each reference. For details, please see the various fields of citation templates like {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}. A complete citation does not require that every field be filled, but more information is always better.
The {{refimprove}} tag serves only to attract attention to the article so that someone may improve it. Its presence does no harm. Please do not remove it without at least partly addressing some of the issues raised. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- The criticisms of the sources made in the AFD discussion were garbage, but you're right that page numbers and more exact identification of some of the sources would be better. To my recollection, that concern was not raised in the AFD discussion. Quale 03:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, that issue was not raised in the AfD. However, it is not inaccurate, "nonsense", or "garbage" to question the independence of this source, for example, when the source states that the information was "taken from Oxford University Chess Club site". Now, I myself didn't agree with some of the criticisms, but that doesn't automatically disqualify all or even most of them. Also, I again urge you to keep your comments civil. It is generally not constructive to characterise another editor's detailed arguments as "nonsense" and is simply rude to state that they are "garbage". -- Black Falcon (Talk) 05:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- There's no WikiPedia policy that says that all sources must be independent of the subject. In fact, WikiPedia recognizes that sometimes sources dependent on the subject are the best sources, depending on the nature of the claim being referenced. The requirement is that some of the sources are independent of the subject. The Olimpbase reference you point out is applied to the founding date of the club, information that is also available from the quote pulled from reference 4 and also in the Chessbase.com news article (reference 5). It's possible that these all draw from the organization's website and thus the same original source (reference 4 was published in 1885, but it seems likely to me that an editor lifted the quote from that source from the club's website or somewhere else rather than actually having the 1885 reference in hand), but it's also quite possible that the club is the best source for its own founding date. There's ample evidence that Lord Randolph Churchill was a founding member (Winston writes about this in his 1906 biography of his father), so that narrows down the date of founding to the range 1863–1870. The only valid concern stated about any of the references was with the geocities page (reference 2), and I allowed that that reference is weak. It is not a key reference, so the value of the article as a whole is not dependent on it. It is this binary view, that every reference not of a gold standard is worthless that is so obnoxious. I think that each reference, with the possible exception of the second, qualifies as a WP:RS given the manner in which it is used in this article. If you think that most of the criticisms weren't nonsense, which six other references do you think were fairly criticized in the context of their use in this article, and which references do you think fail the requirements of WP:RS? Quale 06:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's true that not all sources need to be independent for the article to be kept at AfD, but I'm no longer considering it in that context. In general, it is desirable that sources be independent of the subject, even if they are reliable. The only purpose of the {{refimprove}} tag is to call attention to the issue so that it may be improved. As for your last question, I think that the criticisms of 1-5 and 12-13 are relevant outside the context of AfD. (I'm ignoring issues of whether sources provide trivial or substantial coverage as that is only relevant to establishing notability.) Of those 7 sources, all except #2 are not independent of the subject. Again, that's not a reason to delete the article anymore, but it's something that could be improved, at least by shoring up the other 7 references with more information (page numbers, publisher info, etc.) so that they can become definitively identifiable. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 14:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- There's no WikiPedia policy that says that all sources must be independent of the subject. In fact, WikiPedia recognizes that sometimes sources dependent on the subject are the best sources, depending on the nature of the claim being referenced. The requirement is that some of the sources are independent of the subject. The Olimpbase reference you point out is applied to the founding date of the club, information that is also available from the quote pulled from reference 4 and also in the Chessbase.com news article (reference 5). It's possible that these all draw from the organization's website and thus the same original source (reference 4 was published in 1885, but it seems likely to me that an editor lifted the quote from that source from the club's website or somewhere else rather than actually having the 1885 reference in hand), but it's also quite possible that the club is the best source for its own founding date. There's ample evidence that Lord Randolph Churchill was a founding member (Winston writes about this in his 1906 biography of his father), so that narrows down the date of founding to the range 1863–1870. The only valid concern stated about any of the references was with the geocities page (reference 2), and I allowed that that reference is weak. It is not a key reference, so the value of the article as a whole is not dependent on it. It is this binary view, that every reference not of a gold standard is worthless that is so obnoxious. I think that each reference, with the possible exception of the second, qualifies as a WP:RS given the manner in which it is used in this article. If you think that most of the criticisms weren't nonsense, which six other references do you think were fairly criticized in the context of their use in this article, and which references do you think fail the requirements of WP:RS? Quale 06:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, that issue was not raised in the AfD. However, it is not inaccurate, "nonsense", or "garbage" to question the independence of this source, for example, when the source states that the information was "taken from Oxford University Chess Club site". Now, I myself didn't agree with some of the criticisms, but that doesn't automatically disqualify all or even most of them. Also, I again urge you to keep your comments civil. It is generally not constructive to characterise another editor's detailed arguments as "nonsense" and is simply rude to state that they are "garbage". -- Black Falcon (Talk) 05:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
