Talk:Chess opening

Article requires chess knowledge

For me as a non-chess player, the meaning of the characters in the move sequence is unclear. Probably add some non-specialist explaination or at least a reference so people like me could follow this. 84.118.224.20 (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you be specific what you mean (give example)? Thx. --IHTS (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Capital letters

I made an edit to use lowercase for "king's pawn openings", "queen's pawn openings", and "others". Especially because they are plurals, these seem to be categories and thus common nouns. My edit was reverted by someone saying these are proper nouns. That seems incorrect to me. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that these are common nouns. They are descriptive phrases (openings that start by pushing the king's pawn, etc) not phrases that are meaningful only because they are the name of something (Giuoco Piano, which I guess literally does have a meaning "quiet game" in Italian but in English-language usage is purely a name not a descriptive phrase). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I was mistaken. King's Pawn Game is capitalized, but king's pawn openings is not. BarrelProof was correct. Piping the links makes lower case appropriate. Quale (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you please edit more incrementally?

It's impossible to follow everything you're doing when you edit like this, and you're definitely making some of the material worse. Turning bullet points into single-paragraph sections for example. Have some respect for all the years of work that went into getting the article to the state it is in now. The fact that nobody else thought a huge rewrite was necessary should tell you something. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

And honestly, the fact that no one thought a huge rewrite (let's just say "extensive changes") were necessary is more just that it is super exhausting to make Wikipedia articles and most people just don't care or they get burned out and stop editing. You might as well say "the fact that nobody else thought making Wikipedia perfect was necessary should tell you something"; making Wikipedia is a gradual process. Regardless, I don't mind that you feel that way, but please outline more specific changes you liked or disliked. Dayshade (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll condense that, but I thought it was warranted by the expansion. I do respect it but there's clearly room for improvement. Dayshade (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

When you lump about 50,000 changes together how are we supposed to follow what you're doing, and judge whether your edits are improvements or not? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC) Because many of your changes are making the article worse. For example you've added the claim that 1.a3 is "weakening". It isn't, it's merely passive. Yes, you could fix this one issue that you have introduced to the article, but what about all the other issues you've introduced but which haven't been picked up yet because it's impossible to follow what you're doing? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

That 1.a3 thing was moved from elsewhere in the article, not written by me, but yeah it got mistakenly attributed to me because of how obsessively I edited this article. I'm gonna stop editing this one for a while and let you do a more detailed review. I think you'll agree a lot of drivel was trimmed out, but more could be done. Dayshade (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Quale: which parts did you agree with and which did you disagree with most? I'd say for me, I really liked the introduction of aims of the opening to the lead, getting rid of unnecessary detail on some obscure first moves, breaking off Sicilian from the other semi-opens because we already have like 8 articles on the Sicilian, and likely to end up with a few more eventually, while I believe the Pirc Defence, Austrian Attack is the only subpage for any other reply to 1.e4 besides 1...e5 and 1...c5. Don't mind reverting the aims of the opening expansion into subsections. Also what do you think of merging Semi-Open Game and Semi-Closed Game? Their usage seems pretty rare, probably because the Sicilian and Indian are so important compared to other asymmetrical replies. How would you (and @MaxBrowne2:) vote if I posted (AfDs now) merger proposals? Dayshade (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not able to review 100 changes made in one or two edits and tell you which 50 changes were bad, which 40 were OK and which 10 were good. If you want to improve the Aims of the opening section then confine your edits to that section and we can discuss it. If you want to split Semi-open games into Sicilian Defense and Other Black responses to 1.e4 then make that change alone and we'll talk about it. (Better would be to discuss that kind of reorganization on talk before you make it.) I know you want to do all those things and more, but they should be done in individual pieces so the scope of each change is limited and can be reviewed. We've explained why your editing behavior of turning articles completely inside out in one or two enormous edits is not collaborative, but you do the same things over and over and you never change. Quale (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, but I feel like I'm definitely improving a lot, even though there's plenty of room for further improvement? I do unfortunately think it's best if I do post stuff on articles since I'm really scared there'll be no reply if I don't at least try that, but I'll also try to be more incremental by spreading out work over multiple articles. I just sometimes find it insanely hard to resist the urge to go super hard on an article. Anyway, now I've just posted my change to the intro only, and then will do others more incrementally. Dayshade (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, you don't have to go through all 50. Even just giving your thoughts on a few that stood out and then stopping would be incredibly helpful. Dayshade (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Group openings where Black allows e4 and d4?

Even the text in the lead of the classification section (before the subsection on king's pawn games starts) mentions the phenomenon of e6+d5/c6+d5 and d6+fianchetto (plus there's e6+fianchetto, but that's less common). Maybe this should be a grouping? Also some sources seem to suggest a contrast between QG (which is sorta like french/caro but with c4 not e4) and closed games, which makes sense as closed games to me implies no pawn tension; regardless, "closed games"/"Closed Games" seems to be used less than "Open Games" (which is weirdly usually plural and capitalized), and "semi-closed" seems to be particularly marginal as a term. Thoughts? Dayshade (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Changes with no clue how these things are (now were) organized

Sigh. Endless changes displaying no clue how things were organized.

Under chess opening#Classification of openings we had

4. Classification of chess openings

4.1 Open games: 1.e4 e5

4.2 Semi-open games: 1.e4, Black plays other than 1...e5

4.3 Closed games: 1.d4 d5

4.4 Indian defenses: 1.d4 Nf6

4.5 Other Black responses to 1.d4

4.6 Flank openings (including English, Réti, Bird's, and White fianchettos)

4.7 Unusual first moves for Whi

Not necessarily perfect, but the design was to use a classification that would include all chess openings at roughly the same level. The classification divided everything at move 1 or 2 and the groups were roughly equivalent and appropriately sized for a top level summary discussion. Now 8 sections became 11 and we have

4. Classification of chess openings

4.1 King's pawn games: 1.e4

4.1.1 Open Game: 1...e5

4.1.2 Sicilian Defense: 1...c5

4.1.3 Black's other replies

4.2 Queen's pawn games: 1.d4

4.2.1 Closed Game: 1...d5

4.2.2 Indian Defense: 1...Nf6

4.2.3 Black's other replies

4.3 Flank openings (including English and Réti)

4.4 Unusual first moves for White

The guy who complains endlessly about deep nesting introduces an extra nesting level. "Sicilian Defense" is not a classification of opening, it's a specific opening. This is the only subsection to include only a single opening which is offensively stupid organization. Sections at the same level should be about things that are roughly equivalent. "Indian Defense" is dumb too since Indian Defense is not a single opening. The Indian defenses are a complex of openings. (Naturally Black can play 1...Nf6 and not play an Indian defense, but probably those details can go in other articles.) That's why the section previously was "Indian defenses" and not "Indian Defense". Quale (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I've been seeing several sources presenting Sicilian as a separate category. The "Indian Defense" being multiple defenses while the "Sicilian Defense" is a single defense is at best a misleading oversimplification, and I'd argue it's purely opinion. Dayshade (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

To elaborate (Going back to "Indian defenses"/"Indian systems" wouldn't bother me; I noticed FCO uses no name for 1.d4 Nf6 interestingly), since the first move gives Black a chance to prevent White from having both e4 and d4 safely are (against 1.e4) ...c5 and ...e5, and (against 1.d4) ...d5 and ...Nf6 (and ...f5), while other possibilities (e.g. 1.d4 e6 1.e4 transposing to 1.e4 e6 2.d4) will merge (unless White opts not to, e.g. with 2.c4 after 1.d4). This seems to me to highlight the open games, the sicilians, the indians [why does it feel natural to say sicilians but not indians?] (but there's also the dutch, and KID still has e4 later, and grunfeld does in the exchange variation), and the closed games (need to dig deeper into what's going on with this terminology and if Closed Game is almost always a superset to queen's gambit or often used contrastively for non-QG games that have d4 and d5, do you know?), whereas french/caro-kann seem to group in a similar way to slav/qgd, as do ...d6 strategies, which the article already mentioned as categories before my edits here began. Dayshade (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't all our separate "Indian openings" arise from things like "the Nimzowitsch Variation of the Indian Defense" being annoyingly wordy when 1...Nf6 got super common almost a century ago? Also, it's interesting that on German Wikipedia they use the equivalent of Grünfeld-Indian instead of Grünfeld. Dayshade (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

And for future reference, I have a big problem with fifth level headers, but since fourth level headers weren't in use yet, it made sense here. I think there's clear benefit to having subheaders for continuations of 1.e4 and 1.d4 separately share parent headers. Anyway, definitely open to more revision. Dayshade (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

If 5th level headers were any kind of issue, Wikipedia wouldn't allow them. But they do, up to 6 levels in fact. "Overnesting" is nowhere to be found in any Wikipedia policy or Manual of Style, so stop expecting everyone else to go along with your personal quirks and pecadillos. I also agree with Quale that your re-organization sucks. You took something that was simple and logical and made it less so. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I thought you criticized me on other articles for making doing things such as e.g. 3.Nc3 Nf6, 3.Nc3 Bb4, and 3.Nc3/Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 in the French the same header level as 3.Nd2, 3.e5, and 3.exd5. That is exactly what you are advocating with 1.e4 and 1.d4 not having their replies grouped under them as subheaders. Dayshade (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

And I have a clear memory of that Levivich guy saying last year that avoiding overnesting is good and a less clear memory of him or someone else around the same time saying something about 5th level headers being non-ideal. Besides, isn't it just inelegant to have subheaders of a subheaders not be distinguished in any way visually? Unless you're looking at the table of contents box, you can't tell which is which for a fourth/fifth level header. I.e. you can't tell apart a subtopic of a fourth level header from a new subtopic in its parent (a third level header). Does that make sense? Dayshade (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Reply to question in edit summary: Absolutely not. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Damn, was hoping you would cause the amount of published material on the Sicilian seems comparable to that of 1...e5, while both 1...c5 and 1...e5 dwarf the other replies to 1.e4. Do you at least like the idea of separating 1.d4 into "Queen's Gambit", "Indian systems"/"Indian openings"/whatever, and other queen's pawn games like MCO? The whole semi-closed thing seems pretty marginal in terms of sources, while semi-open has some decent representation, and semi-closed doesn't make as much sense as semi-open, though semi-open is also rather misleading. Starting out: 1.e4! by Neil McDonald is a good example of a text making a three way breakdown. Dayshade (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

You could certainly make a case for the view that the Sicilian is not a single opening but a whole family of openings each with a unique character. But you could say that about many other openings too. Insisting that this article be organized according to your personal opinion on this is POV pushing. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Definitely thinking about conceding and changing it back to Open vs Semi-Open, but wanna hear one more person telling me how terrible my idea is first, and we have tons of articles on variations of the Sicilian that can benefit from a brief mention here, just like the important categories of Open Games. Regardless of merging Sicilian back with the other Semi-Opens, do you agree with removing the Semi-Closed thing, because Semi-Closed has only marginal representation in sources, unlike Semi-Open (which still isn't a very common term)? Dayshade (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I just don't understand why you don't care that the Sicilian dwarfs anything besides 1...e5 in terms of published material and lacks the allowing White both e4 and d4 that is characteristic of the other replies to e4 besides e5 and c5? Is it just that MCO/the like happen to list them under the term Semi-Open? Cause that distinction between Open and Semi-Open is still in the article, it just is a convenient breakpoint to do 1...c5 and then others afterward, because of how many variations of the Sicilian have articles, and how notable they are compared to those of the French/Caro/etc. Dayshade (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

And I still don't understand in particular why it's "Absolutely not." rather than "Eh, not a bad idea, but probably best to keep the original categorization." And I'm definitely sympathetic to the POV pushing accusation, but I'm definitely very open to it, I'm just hesitant to get rid of it immediately (and I do immediately change other things, like that getting rid of Quale's disliked phrasing earlier) because I know you'll probably just never respond to any further discussion about it. Also here is the old Village pump thing: Also, can't find that thing I thought I remembered that was advising against fifth levels, but it was only a footnote anyway. I've never said they were prescribed against, but clearly some users agree they are non-ideal. Dayshade (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

You're allowed to hold unconventional/minority views on openings and on chess in general. That's all part of what makes it such a great game. You're just not allowed to force them on to wikipedia articles. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

And you're basing this on the fact that MCO and the like use that Semi-Open terminology a little bit, while spending very little time discussing it, and that some other books like BCO heavily split up the Open Games before spending 70 pages on the Sicilian, and so on? Are there any other particular sources driving you to oppose splitting Sicilian from French/Caro/etc so strongly? Dayshade (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

And since you ignored the question deleting Semi-Closed, I'm assuming that means you agree with it? Do you prefer grouping 1.d4 into 1.d4 d5 2.c4, 1.d4 d5 without 2.c4 (might include e.g. 1.d4 f5 too), and 1.d4 Nf6 (perhaps only with 2.c4)? Dayshade (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't assume anyone agrees with you about anything. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Getting the vibe you agree with it. Anyway hopefully the new version addresses your preference to not assign the Sicilian its own category. The diff looks daunting but mostly just new diagrams making it look bigger than it is. Dayshade (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok I'm feeling really excited about the new version, while it also seems to have largely addressed both your and Quale's criticisms. And I've been controlling myself from editing the other sections of the article. I guess I'll try to focus on adding some citations next so the warning at the top can be taken off. Dayshade (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Quale: how do you feel about how it looks now? And I don't see how making Semi-Closed the spinoff for all of 1.d4 except 1...d5 and 1...Nf6 makes sense if it's meant to include 1...Nf6, as we've been arguing about on Talk:Giuoco Piano, but that's moot now in the latest revisions. Dayshade (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

And not sure where there was WP:IDHT for that anyway (again, highly suggest deprecating this opaque acronym in favor of WP:LISTEN). I was just saying I didn't agree that it was logical, I thought. Maybe missed something? Dayshade (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

And maybe even WP:ACCEPTCONSENSUS or something would be better, but I find it often being applied to two or even one person talking, rather than an actual larger consensus. Also: "Stop writing, listen, and consider what others are telling you. Make an effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with"." I'm always trying to make an effort to see your sides of debates and finding points of agreement!! I concede stuff and attempt compromise edits all the time. But sometimes it very much feels like people didn't even read certain comments. The whole subsection needs a lot of work and I've been thinking about proposing some improvements to it because it being linked in discussions has always been incredibly unhelpful to me. I think it's trying to do too much at once? Not sure. Dayshade (talk) 07:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see you stopping writing on many articles where you've made controversial changes. You continue to make blizzards of edits on multiple pages, including 70+ changes on this article in the last 11 days. This combined with wall of text fillibustering on the talk pages has a tendency to drive out other editors who might like to contribute if the article would remain stable for a while so they could review it. My overall impression is that you want to reorganize and rewrite all the chess opening pages so they are exactly how you want them and won't be satisfied until you erase the work of all other editors on these pages over the last 25 years. Quale (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry. There’s nothing I can do to retroactively not do those edits. How do you feel about the changes to the page as it stands? Dayshade (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, I think no one will ever put it better than Max at Talk:Italian Gambit. "You seem to be on a personal mission to completely rewrite every chess opening article on Wikipedia according to your own preferences". But it's mostly not true that "talk page discussions are fruitless because [I] reply to absolutely everything with walls of text and distractions and whataboutery and don't accept when the consensus is against [me]". Dayshade (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Like how is there no fruit? I've conceded to tons of things. Just not 100% of them. Dayshade (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Quale I'm hard-pressed to find a single one of those 70+ edits that was actually an improvement. So many of them were just change for the sake of change, to a stable article with over 20 years of history and which the Wikipedia chess community considered broadly satisfactory. I just find this whole approach to editing very disruptive and very disrespectful. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I find your approach to criticism very disrespectful. Dayshade (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't mean disrespectful to me personally. I mean to the whole Wikipedia community. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I still don't see how, but whatever. At least Scandinavian Defense is now getting a much-needed (very much...) joint rework by us instead of more arguing. Dayshade (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't understand how you thought there were so few improvements. The current version now has a whole screen on Indian defenses (including too much history, largely ignored in the other sections), but a quarter screen on all Semi-Opens combined, ignores that many books do separate out the Sicilian from the Semi-Open, and many other issues. Will be addressing this in the coming days, which will include partially restoring my changes in a more gradual way. Dayshade (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

That's more an argument for reducing coverage of the Indian Defences than expanding the semi-opens. Keep it summary style. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Most of the material in this article on the Indian defenses is already found in Indian Defence so much of the overlapping material could be trimmed from this article, especially the historical discussion. A small amount material here that is not currently in Indian Defence should be moved there. Looking at Indian Defence I think the lead of that article is too long and complicated and I don't think it's a good idea to try to introduce every Indian defense by name in the lead. Instead we should create a new section at Indian Defence and call it something like "Overview" which could house that material.

Looking at this chess opening article it has always lacked a good account of the history of chess openings. We should add a history section and rectify that. Quale (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes I'm thinking the same thing about King's Pawn Opening and Semi-Open Game. Chess Opening and King's Pawn opening can mention that the Sicilian and French exist, Semi-Open Game can give a brief overview of them, the Sicilian and French articles can explain them in more detail. Do we need all four articles? Probably not... but I'm a bit fed up with radical reorgs right now. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Sicilian deserves longer coverage than French does for the same reason Indian "warrants separate treatment". And the Scandinavian reorg went really well so hopefully that made you less fed up. Dayshade (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Fortunately there's a whole article that can talk about the Sicilian and how important it is in great detail. I direct your attention to Sicilian Defence. Quale (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I will work on that more sometime. Do you think there shouldn't be any links to its variations in this article? Dayshade (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Right, I think that the classifications of openings/nomenclature in this article should be a high level summary. There should not be any variations of the Sicilian linked or mentioned in this article, just as there shouldn't be any mention of specific variations of the Ruy Lopez or the Nimzo-Indian. (The article does mention the Marshall Attack but not in conjunction with the Ruy as it's used as an example of a chess opening that is called "Attack". The article does mention two variations of the English to describe two possibilities that don't transpose into another opening. Possibly this should be reworked not not mention the variations.) I get that this leads to anomalous treatment of GP and Two Knights as openings that might get mention here and the Dragon and the Najdorf as variations that don't. We've disucssed that historical detail several times before.

Although Max hinted that he thinks the intermediate level summary articles Open Game, Closed Game, etc. should perhaps go away, I don't agree. Chess openings is a very large topic and although it might seem excessive to have a summary in chess opening followed by second level summaries in Open Game, etc., I had always hoped that there would be straightforward navigation from chess opening to all chess opening articles. I think that is impractical without the second level division inbetween this article and the articles on individual openings. Possibly some of the articles on individual openings should be summary style as well. I always hoped that Ruy Lopez could be treated largely in summary style, but practically that's hard to do as you may recognize from your efforts on that article. The Sicilian is another large topic that might be suited to summary style treatment in the main article, but I always wish people would develop sections in the main topic article and then spin them out when they are large enough to be self-sustaining standalone articles rather than jumping immediately to create a terrible chess opening variation stub article. Quale (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

This article keeps getting worse

This article keeps getting worse. At this point I think it would be better to rewind to December 2025 and start from there. Quale (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Completely wrong with a typical offensive edit summary. Read the talk page section above and retry replying. Omfg. I'm so sick of this. Dayshade (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

See your own reply and edit summary here: We don't need an entire screen on 1.d4 Nf6 and a quarter screen of all 1.e4 non-e5 combined!! Dayshade (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Will go ahead and paste the old section on Indian systems into Semi-Closed Game, though. Hopefully that is enough to reduce your irritation, but I'm still amazed that you thought those changes were downgrades. Beginning to suspect some sort of undue favoritism to 1.d4 Nf6, because it's amazing how you oppose mentioning even a SINGLE Sicilian variation when 1.e4 c5 makes up a huge percentage of games. Dayshade (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Whatever issues the article may have had before, I think we'd both rather you weren't the one to try to fix them. For reasons that have frequently been explained. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Get over it. WP:SATISFY. Except I do bend over backwards to satisfy both of you and just get met with even more endless verbal abuse. Dayshade (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

But you repeat the same undesirable behaviours again and again no matter how many times we point it out. Huge number of changes at a time that nobody can possibly review without a huge investment of time, time which we'd rather be spending on something productive. Flooding, bludgeoning, stonewalling and whataboutery in talk page discussions that makes people feel like they can't get a word in edgewise. You mean well but the net effect of your editing is disruptive. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The current changes to this page are perfectly reasonably reviewable, and there is no time limit for doing a review, and time spent reviewing IS "something productive". People get words in edgewise constantly as I invite feedback. I don't stonewall, and have been bludgeoning less, accusations of which I think were always heavily exaggerated. And stop using "whataboutery" to dodge rightful accusations about your own incivility and hypocrisy. Dayshade (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

It's unproductive because it's an unnecessary time-suck. I'd far rather be doing something else, but your edits are mixed at best, and many of them are positively damaging to the project. But you just keep on charging ahead with huge changes instead of letting people assess your edits and collaborating. You're like a kid who constantly demands attention, and you waste the time of the project. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Except I'm not charging ahead with huge changes, because I'm soliciting feedback. Here you are wasting your time typing your typical stupid semi-hostile messages instead of simply assessing the edits and collaborating. Dayshade (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Citation usage on my part has improved heavily. In general I'm quite angered at the lack of admission of improvement on various points like that, and it's just so weird to me that you still consider these edits, which I broke into a few smaller edits, still too big. Dayshade (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

You've mentioned mental health a few times, specifically yours. Don't get me wrong, mental health is a serious issue and I'd never use it as any sort of put-down. But you should probably read the essay WP:NOTTHERAPY. 01:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC) MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You should probably read it (again) too. Seriously. Dayshade (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You're actually being relatively not nasty this discussion, to your credit, though. Perhaps my anger toward Quale alarmed you? Dayshade (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)