Talk:The Queen's Gambit (miniseries)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Chess Low‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is in the list of selected articles that are shown on Portal:Chess.

Television High‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Television High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Why the Luchenko chess match in 'The Queen's Gambit' is the most powerful game in the series Insider

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2020, when it received 12,907,536 views.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 10 times. The weeks in which this happened:

October 25 to 31, 2020 (2nd)
November 1 to 7, 2020 (12th)
November 8 to 14, 2020 (9th)
November 15 to 21, 2020 (9th)
November 22 to 28, 2020 (7th)
November 29 to December 5, 2020 (8th)
December 6 to 12, 2020 (7th)
December 13 to 19, 2020 (6th)
December 20 to 26, 2020 (11th)
December 27, 2020 to January 2, 2021 (12th)

On 14 October 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to The Queen's Gambit. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Automatic archiving is enabled for this talk page[edit]

To User:GenQuest and anyone else interested:

This talk page is archived automatically by a bot, as specified by the Archives box in the header.

What this means is that us editors have agreed on when and how talk discussions get archived. There is no need for manual archiving (such as with the OneClickArchiver tool), and in fact, doing so would supersede and ignore the agreed-upon pace at which talk discussions get archived.

So, please, do not manually archive talk pages where automatic archiving is set up. If you are dissatisfied with the pace of archiving, the proper course of action is to discuss changes to the existing archive bot parameters. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please cool down. Even when automatic archiving is set up, there is nothing stopping an editor from archiving manually. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is considered to be disruptive editing when it is done prematurely and ignoring auto-archiving that was set up a while ago. According to WP:TALKCOND, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB in wikitext or has numerous resolved or stale discussions. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That rule of thumb does not make premature archiving "disruptive", as long a recent discussions are left on the page. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why anyone would ever want to archive discussions prematurely...

Other than that, I agree nothing technically prevents an editor from archiving manually a talk page governed by an archive bot. That doesn't mean it is a good idea or should be given a pass in general. Implementing a mechanism to prevent tools like OneClickArchiving from archiving bot-governed talk pages is a bad idea and would likely be much more work than it is worth. Much better to rely on the common sense of editors to only OneClickArchive bot-governed talk pages in those relatively uncommon cases when there is an actual need. CapnZapp (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor is doing it prematurely on multiple Talk discussions, then it is disruptive editing as in not a one time incident. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure YoungForever, but the topic of this discussion is "please don't manually archive talk pages governed by bot parameters, since you are effectively ignoring a previously agreed-upon archiving cadence". I did not bring up GenQuest's actions because I judged his OneClickArchiving to be premature or not premature (he had not yet made the mistake / poor judgement call to OneClickArchive this discussion), I brought them up because manual archiving is neither needed nor appreciated when we have given the archiving job to a bot. CapnZapp (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is time wasting nonsense. Questions: Did it hurt anything by archiving stale/resolved discussions? No. Was this even discussed before. No. The editor in question says: ...means is that us editors have agreed on when and how talk discussions get archived. There is no need for manual archiving (such as with the OneClickArchiver tool), and in fact, doing so would supersede and ignore the agreed-upon pace at which talk discussions get archived... What "we"? Please post the permalink to that conversation, I missed it. (I see a monologue about it in the archives of this page, but certainly no discussion or even a dialogue between two users – just someone else in the past being chastised unilaterally by the same editor for this supposed "violation." News flash: It's no violation to archive stale discussions). Don't you have more important things to do than call-out people because you don't like it that way? There was no reason to immediately elevate this into some pissing-fest. A simple discussion on a user talk would have probably done.

There was no policy being broken, and the auto archiver obviously wasn't set properly or working (not uncommon), or 3/4-year-old discussions wouldn't be here in the first place. The calling out publically of a user on the article talk page, however, was over-stepping common practice and not appreciated. I archived the original conversation to give that editor time to re-think his actions, as we don't template the regulars–even on their personal talk, but ESPECIALLY on an article talk page. That kind of bullying won't fly with me. Period.

I expected the move to be reverted, as it was, but was hoping the editor would've had the common sense to remove the call-out.

So now, I've been forced to respond in a time consuming and more thorough manner. Over bull-shit. People need to get a life. And, I want my 15 minutes back... GenQuest ^"scribble" 05:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is no longer a high activity page. I don't understand why people are getting so het up about archiving. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GenQuest Hear, hear. Debresser (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absence[edit]

Apologies to Bruce leverett and thanks to Bruce and MaxBrowne2 for fixing and explaining my mistake. As Max notes, "absent for" has a different meaning here than "absent from" and only the former is correct in this context. Quale (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if experienced editors can get this wrong, the reading public is probably doing so too. So if anyone can think of a better way to phrase it ... Bruce leverett (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mention of the Corona epidemic[edit]

A big part of the buzz around this show is its release during the epidemic. Nowhere in the article is this discussed or the epidemic even mentioned. CapnZapp (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible 2nd season[edit]

I don't remember if this was ever brought up by the article and later removed, or just never addressed. Either way, feels a bit strange to not say even one thing about this. Taylor-Joy even made a (cut) SNL sketch with this as its punchline. CapnZapp (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a comedy sketch is not a confirmation of a possible second season though. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is or will ever be a second season and have not claimed such. I am pointing out a deficiency I feel is present in the article; that the article nowhere summarizes what has been said re: a possible 2nd series. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]