Talk:Nadare jōseki

Why change the algebraic notation, to one that is never, ever used for go? Charles Matthews 14:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is the notation used in most joseki books that I have seen. It is very commonly used in openings and especially discussing the first few moves of the game because when there are few stones on the board moving in any of the 4 quadrants is exactly equivalent. As it was using the algebraic notation implied that it should be in the lower left hand quadrant and oriented in such a way that it was less illustrative. Plus it might imply that the joseki only counted if played in that quadrant, when in fact it could start on any 3—4 point and proceed. Dalf | Talk 14:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseki books hardly use any type of notation. Go players talk about 3-4 (komoku), but without consistency (is that x, y or y, x). The point about orientation seems to me to be trivial. It is obviously against common sense. Chess players are very used to c4 type notations, which is why I used it here. It is also used in go, since Korschelt. Charles Matthews 15:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it is far more clear this way, and not confusing at all for readers who are new to go or readers who are long time Go players. It is also not unprecedented as I stated. The Chess analogy is not 100% on though since the chess board does not have the same kind of symmetry and in also has other notations that do account for what symmetry there is (i.e. Descriptive notation). However, if you feel strongly that the algebraic notation should be used go ahead and change it back I won’t fight over it. Dalf | Talk 16:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a question of clarity, this point should be addressed once and for all at joseki (i.e. the basic go opening theory page here). That is where some conventions might be established. The usual way of discussing joseki is by diagrams, of course. WP is much more awkward from that point of view, than Sensei's Library. In this case I was just concerned to notate it somehow, and give links for extra information. If you look around here, you will find a great number of pages on chess openings, so it is not ridiculous to do it that way. Charles Matthews 16:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the score that it should be standard. I was actually thinking about starting a wikiproject for Go like the one for chess. The Go pages here are pretty horrible actually, they have lots of duplication and at least one case of two pages linking to each other as sources for information that neither of them have. As far as the diagrams go we have created a few templates (which I did not use on the diagram here) that actually make this pretty easy. The templates still need some work and I am going to do a bit of work to make them easier to use but for the time being they are pretty good. Dalf | Talk 17:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's about time we had a WikiProject. I have written much about go elsewhere; so I wasn't so keen to do that all again at WP. But if we are talking about standardising on notations, implementing diagrams and so on, then we need a project set up. Also, there are quite a few Wikipedian go players I know here, and things might go faster with some focus. (But please - not too much about the rules!). Charles Matthews 16:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page name

'Avalanche joseki' is actually an awkward mixture of English and Japanese. I think the move should have been discussed here first. Charles Matthews 19:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be properly called as "Joseki", not "opening", to be distinguished from "Fuseki". Regarding the question whether it can be called as "Avalanche" or "nadare", I don't have a position. Both are fine. --Neo-Jay 20:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We Go players say Avalanche Joseki -- or we say nadare -- yeah, it's mixing English and Japanese... so what? --Damon Simms 13 October 2006

Errors

Um, hey guys/gals, has anyone noticed that in all the editing something got screwed up? The page says "After White 3, Black 4 brings to mind...", but 3 is a black stone and 4 is a white stone... I'd correct it myself, but I'm not sure what the intent of the writer was... there are actually 2 or 3 ways the gaff could be corrected, depending on what you're trying to imply about the hane...

Also, the second sentence in that paragraph is not clear either, and actually looks like someone may have screwed around with it too. "In accordance with this proverb, Black should play b — however, depending on the situation elsewhere on the board, White 6 may be not only playable, but preferable." Actually, in accordance with the proverb Black should play 'a'... thus leading me to suspect shenanigans. Actually the whole sentence seems like a non-sequiter. It's like the words Black and White were possibly interchanged, as were 'a' and 'b' and 3 and 4.

What's goin' on? --Damon Simms 13 October 2006

this edit seems to be the one that introduced most of this. Some of the other stuff in it seems nonsensical and the added claims are not refrenced. I am going to revert it, with a note to have a look here and to provide a bit more clarity if the editor wishes to reapply it. Dalf | Talk 01:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back I am not going to revert lets wait a bit. Dalf | Talk 01:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid Image Blurb 41.242.170.143 (talk) 21 February 2008

The image blurb above the image says "Upper Right Quadrant" but the image itself is actually of the upper-left quadrant. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.170.143 (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of links

For some unknown reason somebody is removing hyperlinks of this page and their equivalent in other languages. The exact reason is me unknown. But it seems to be they are reported as "spam" although not mentioned on the wikipedia blacklist at all. If anybody knows why exactly they are removed, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.221.217 (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]