Talk:Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation

Any value in including some analysis on this line? Pretty common response to prevent 9. ...d5 without committing bishop to c4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.29.176.52 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Excellent Article!! Gave me the simple but solid understanding of what looked like a bizzare opening to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.139.71 (talk • contribs) 29 July 2006

What does "unencyclopedic info" supposed to mean. The earlier commentry was lively, and has been replaced by dry prose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.136.124 (talk • contribs) 12 June 2007

"Unencyclopedic" usually refers to original research or personal opinions — see Wikipedia:Five pillars. I suppose it could also refer to unreferenced claims. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 09:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

what does sharpest mean in this context?? I'm not sure what word to change it to, but I feel it should be changed, its essential for the article and ambiguous in its meaning —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walker9010 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That is correct chess terminology, and it has a link now. Basically it means that you are playing very hard for a win, even at an increased risk of losing, and tactical versus stratigic. Bubba73 (talk), 04:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a redirect from "Dragon Variation" to this page 91.107.164.135 (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the "trap" line mentioned here is wrong. After 6. f4 Bg7 7. e5 Ng4 8. Bb5+ Kf8, black is perhaps unhappy, but he isn't losing a piece. After the wikipedia line, 9.Ne6+??, white just loses his knight after the simple response 9...Bxe6. The game is over, but in black's favor. I could have missed something major here, but otherwise this should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.166.35 (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

In the Levenfish Variation 8.Bb5 must have a + being check. --Little bishop (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we please have a reference to the game by GM Mikhail Golubev, mentioned in the section Yugoslav Attack with 9.0-0-0, where Golubev plays the queen sacrifice? Who was his opponent? In what year was this game played please? --Joe Gatt (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I checked the databases and Golubev's book and it seems he hasn't actually played the sac himself. The move 11.e5 was introduced by Leonid Milov against Golubev, who got into a worse position after 11...Nd7 12.Bxd4 Nxe5 13.Qe3. It was when analyzing the position later that Golubev found the queen sac, which was apparently also found independently by a "J. Diaz" and first played at the board (as far as I can tell) by Juan Pablo Seminara in the 1997 Argentinian championship. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The MOS:ENGVAR was decidedly Amer ENGVAR in the orig history of article development. The title was appropriately moved then also (and s/b moved again), here. So it's Amer ENGVAR unless the opening has an overriding tie to European Eng. Yes? --IHTS (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I move to consider there to be an overriding tie based on Sicilian Defence already being British. But this is just my desire for an exception to MOS:ENGVAR to achieve perfectly elegant consistency across opening articles talking, really. Dayshade (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, the way I read MOS:ENGVAR to me doesn't really suggest we should be going back to revert 20 year old changes anyway. Dayshade (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I had an admin try to make trouble for me on my Talk on the basis of the ENGVAR how an article starts out needs to be maintained. Seems like you and that admin should get together to discuss who's right. I refuse to get caught up between opposite answers. Personally I think the way an article starts out has its logical limits as a reasonable basis for ENGVAR, and extreme example but one the admin was throwing up on me over was a single word (not even in the body text, in a section header). So what if that single word gets copyedit-deleted by another editor later? There goes that basis for that determination for ENGVAR based on that word! The same c/ happen even if more than one word, so, seems to me the entire basis of "how anticle starts out" has holes in it because further editing history can remove the basis (making ENGVAR neutral or undetermined after the removal copyedits), and editing further at that point can re-introduce words that provide a basis for a different ENGVAR. So the policy wasn't well thought out from its birth. I could go back and rub the admin's nose in that logic, but it was already unpleasant getting accused of inappropriately changing an ENGVAR on the molecule-thin basis he was already nagging me on. I don't see anything in the History section of article saying British, so where are you coming from re that? And is some Russian coining term "Dragon" sufficient to determine ENGVAR. If you can't tell my now, I don't want to be involveded in judgment calls, I want to just fucking follow the rules. But the rules seem to be stupid, and the basis for judgment smelly. Your idea to make consistent w/ other article titles doesn't make sense policy-wise, you know that, right?! --IHTS (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it doesn't make sense. I just can't resist my incredible urge to have consistency. Maybe we should request an exception to the policy for chess opening articles that are a variation of a parent article (e.g. Sicilian Defence, using that article in part of their name, like this page we're on the talk page of) that already has a set ENGVAR to use that same ENGVAR from the parent article. Though I'm not sure where the appropriate place is. Maybe the same place MaxBrowne asked about fifth level headers last year. Dayshade (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I have asked a question about this here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#ENGVAR question. Khiikiat (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

We are allowed to change the original ENGVAR if consensus can be achieved. But this topic has no strong national ties. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

If consensus can be reached that it would reasonably improve the article to use a different ENGVAR than the first non-stub revision used, there doesn't need to be strong national ties. MOS:RETAIN is a remedy for when there are no strong national ties AND there is no consensus; it isn't a trump card that can be used to override consensus for no reason other than "MOS says so!" or "I don't like it!", and especially not when said consensus is based on objectively reasonable arguments.

Lastly, MOS is a guideline, not a policy; it provides guidance for article writing, but it doesn't proscribe exceptions against consensus, and even explicitly allows exceptions.

Support changing article text back to British English. ~2026-32109-96 (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)