Talk:Checkers (video game)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Checkers (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Æ's old account wasn't working (talk · contribs) 10:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: PresN (talk · contribs) 13:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article; I should have a review up today or tomorrow. --PresN 13:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

The article as a whole looks great, so it's really just cleanup issues I saw as I went through, there's not really structural problems or missing elements. My reviewing style is to make a list of issues and thoughts as I read through the article, rather than use a checklist template. I'm just going to fix minor punctuation issues myself rather than type them up here.

• Unclear why the lede has citations, especially ones that aren't used in the body
• "Arthur Samuel later discovered it the same year in Toronto, Canada during a conference where Strachey described Checkers, prompting Samuel to develop his own version in 1952 on the IBM 701." - discovered but it was described; later but the same year but 1952; try "Later that year at a conference in Toronto, Canada, Strachey described Checkers to Arthur Samuel, prompting him to develop his own version on the IBM 701."
• I feel like the lede should mention that this was the first known computer game to be created for a general-purpose computer, and that its one of (or maybe the) earliest known games to display visuals on an electronic screen, that's pretty important to its legacy
• "Christopher Strachey was a British computer scientist known for being one of the founders" - founders of what?
• "However, the project was delayed for many months due to technical, political, and economic reasons." -> "The project was delayed for many months, however, due to technical, political, and economic reasons." (don't start sentences with "however")
• "Discouraged and lacking diplomacy, Turing abandoned the highly ambitious project" - unclear what "lacking diplomacy" is supposed to mean
• "He was also influenced in his choice by Charles Babbage, his analytical engine, and his proposals for chess and checkers games." -> "He was also influenced in his choice by Charles Babbage's analytical engine and proposals for chess and checkers games." (the "his" is ambiguous since you already said his in the sentence)
• "However, programming errors prevented it from functioning correctly.[13] Additionally, the prototype’s memory was insufficient to run the game properly.[14]" -> "Programming errors, however, prevented it from functioning correctly, and the prototype's memory was insufficient to run the game properly.[13][14]"
• "Convinced by this idea, Strachey temporarily set aside his checkers program. The final version of Checkers..." These two sentences jar a bit, as you go from him pausing work to summary information; I think the "longest program record" makes more sense in the last paragraph of this section, where you repeate the 1000 line thing anyway.
• "Nevertheless,... Moreover,... Meanwhile, ... Additionally," - you start every sentence of this paragraph with an adverb, which reads choppy - drop the meanwhile and additionally.
• "Other laboratory members were initially amused to see Strachey eager to run his program on punched tape, After correcting a few errors, it was able to play "God Save the King" through a loudspeaker." - Unless I'm confused, the program wasn't to play the song but to play the checkers game (with the song at the end), so this is implying but not stating that the checkers part worked too, right? Also, you just changed it, but now it doesn't explain why the other lab members were amused. So "Other laboratory members were initially amused to see Strachey eager to run his program on punched tape as they did not believe that a newcomer could succeed in running a complex program on the first try. After he corrected a few errors, however, the program worked, successfully playing a game of checkers followed by "God Save the King" through a loudspeaker."
• You say that Checkers was "unique" for being written for a general-purpose computer, which it was, but it was also the first game written for such (see Early history of video games for cites for that)
• Maybe mention that while Turochamp was "designed by Turing in 1948", it was "designed by Turing in 1948 but never successfully run on a computer" to explain why Checkers is still pretty notable for playing the computer side of a game four years later.
• "At the time when Strachey ported Checkers to the Mark 1" - "Around the same time as Strachey was porting Checkers to the Mark 1", since it wasn't literally the same time and the timeline is a bit ambiguous
• "The game inspired Arthur Samuel" - specify Checkers, since you talk about two games immediately prior
• You call it the "EDSAC at the University of Cambridge" the second time you mention the EDSAC, rather than the first
• The lede sentence "Checkers would fade into obscurity in the following years, being largely forgotten until renewed interest in the early history of video games in the 21st century brought it to prominence." doesn't seem to be summarizing anything in legacy; it's certainly not wrong but I think you need a sourced sentence about it in the body.
• Ref 16 is a book and so should be cited like the other books in Bibliography (and also the isbn should be formatted like the others (978-2-918272-10-6)); refs and 27 21 were the same but I fixed them as the books were in bibliography, but they also don't have page numbers or chapter titles; ref 22 also should be cited like the other books in Bibliography and also has the chapter title partially in French
• Ref 2 and 14 have the same chapter number/name - is that correct?

 Done Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Made some more tweaks myself, and passing! --PresN 16:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Article title and WP:UCRN concerns

Hi all,

Apologies for the recent move without discussing first! So basically I am concerned that the title of the article is not aligned with WP:UCRN. My reasoning: Checkers has been implemented at least hundreds of times, and we might agree that Strachey's 1952 implementation is the most important instance. But it's not the one most associated with common natural language usage. Readers are more likely to expect a discussion of checkers as a general video game concept or paradigm. Compare: chess (video game) which, appropriately, redirects to computer chess.

Beyond that, I took a look at WP:NCVGDAB, which led me to the criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which I will review below. I'm comparing the present title with a potential redirect to, say, Checkers#Computer checkers.

1. A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

• Not satisfied: most readers will be more likely to have heard of Checkers#Computer checkers compared to the present page.

2. A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

• Uncertain: I think it could be argued either way. The present topic has long-term educational value, notability, and significance, however, so does the topic of computer checkers implementations in general. So I don't see why this has more educational value than that, although they are both clearly important and closely related to each other.

Thoughts? @Annh07: @Zxcvbnm: @PresN: Interested in hearing your opinions as more experienced editors in this space!

Thanks, Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Æ's old account wasn't working: Adding an additional ping for your thoughts! :) Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Readers are more likely to expect a discussion of checkers as a general video game concept or paradigm [citation needed]

The chess example doesn't work, because there is no video game called "Chess".

More to the point, "computer checkers" is more general than "checkers video game", as the example of the robot implementation shows, whereas Strachey's "Checkers" is exactly that, a video game. Paradoctor (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm.

there is no video game called "Chess" [citation needed]

I am certain that many computer programs have been written called exactly that. Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Should be easy enough to prove, then. You're not going to ask me to prove a negative, are you? Paradoctor (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The (1952 video game) disambiguator would be completely fine if the title 'Checkers (video game)' was redirected to Checkers#Computer checkers.

In other words, Checkers (1952 video game) should be this article's title, as it correctly disambiguates this specific game from the general topic of computer checkers. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that would make more sense. Thanks for making the requested move below. Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 17 July 2025

Checkers (video game) → ? – Not wanting to risk butchering a newly-promoted GA, I am launching an RM here amid discussion above. "Checkers (video game)" is too ambiguous, being unable to distinguish Christopher Strachey's Checkers from the general topic of computer checkers. My first choice would be Checkers (1952 video game), as this was the article's original title before it was moved.

However, the video game referred to here as "Checkers" did not have a proper title. Strachey only referred to it as a "computer program" that just so happened to simulate checkers (the term "video game" was not in common use in 1952). But since "Checkers" was developed in the United Kingdom, would it be "Draughts" instead of "Checkers"? Not really sure what to think of this one. What do you think? Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 15:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

• Keep "Checkers" is the WP:COMMONNAME. There is no need to disambiguate the game from "computer checkers", as "computer checkers" is not known as "Checkers" or "checkers".

WP:TITLEDAB: only as much detail as is necessary to distinguish one topic from another should be used. There are no other articles about video games called "Checkers". Paradoctor (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:NCVGDAB, "video game" is only used to disambiguate individual games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• In favor (see the discussion in the previous section). Checkers is plainly not understood by a general audience as referring to Strachey's implementation. Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  Immaterial. We're not talking about Checkers, we're talking about Checkers (video game). Paradoctor (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the correction, yes, I meant Checkers (video game). (It makes no difference either way, to my vernacular.) Thanks, Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  Then we're back to an unsubstantiated claim. I asked you previously to prove it, and I can only repeat: WP:PROVEIT.

  my vernacular is your vernacular. Please take into account that nobody else is privy to it. We are a diverse lot. Paradoctor (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  The statement I was asked to prove previously and this one are not the same. The previous claim was that there are other video games called Chess. Here is one. There are numerous others. Your disagreement suggests, however, that you are really not contesting this claim but perhaps some other claim such as "there are notable video games called Chess", a claim which I did not make.

  The present claim is that Checkers (video game) does not refer to Strachey's implementation in vernacular English. I find this claim self-evident. Consider if I went to a friend's house and announced, "I have installed Checkers the video game!" Would they respond with: "brilliant implementation by Strachey, isn't it?" See WP:UCRN. Caleb Stanford (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  "there are notable video games called Chess", a claim which I did not make Technicality. This discussion is about how to disambiguate this particular game, and other games with the same name are only relevant when they are notable and we have articles about them. There are none. It seems I was giving too much credit there. I'll try not to repeat my mistake.

  Would they respond with That is confusing WP:COMMONNAME with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. We're talking about how to disambiguate the game, not if. Paradoctor (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  I find this claim self-evident. Ugh. I don't. Burden of proof.

  I can only repeat: WP:PROVEIT. Paradoctor (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  Not sure if this discussion is going anywhere :)

  Repeatedly linking to WP:PROVEIT is not really helping your case. The guidelines on that page are about adding verifiable information to Wikipedia articles. It's not clear to me to what extent (and if at all) that applies to the question of whether Computer checkers or Checkers (1952 video game) is a more natural target and referent for Checkers (video game). In fact, WP:TITLECHANGES suggests that it is consensus, not burden of proof, that drives title page changes.

  Let me see if I am getting the right takeaway from your message. So is it correct that WP:UCRN is what applies here, not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (due to the DAMB)?

  If so, then I think my specific claim is the following: if you went to 100 worldwide English speakers at random and asked them what Checkers the video game refers to, you'd get many more people who would find Computer checkers to be a natural referent and many fewer who would find Checkers (1952 video game) to be a natural referent.

  I don't have any proof for the above claim, but I believe it to be true. If it is true, then by my reading of WP:UCRN that would mean the present title for the page may be inappropriate.

  Hope this clarifies ... and I hope I am now getting this right re: WP:UCRN and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

  I don't have any proof for the above claim Yes, I pointed that out several times already. Which means your case is not made. Anybody can claim anything, that's not a sound argument. Try WP:DCON, maybe that will help you understand.

  Not sure if this discussion is going anywhere As long as you don't understand the need to make your case with arguments and facts instead of unsubstantiated claims, well, yes, that's the expected outcome. Paradoctor (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

  P.S.: Can you find any instances of ''XYZ'' (video game) that are about "computer XYZ", rather than individual games (or dabs)? And if you do, what are the statistics there? Asking for a friend. Paradoctor (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

  You're oversimplifying the whole thing and have not even attempted to answer the question of whether Computer checkers or Checkers (1952 video game) is a more natural target and referent for Checkers (video game). You have not answered any of my questions. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

  Let's agree to disagree and move this discussion elsewhere if you have any further comments (I hope not). Kind regards, Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

  move this discussion Absolutely not. This is discussion is exactly where it belongs.

  is a more natural target "Natural" is not a criterion, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TITLEDAB are. Which I stated in my !vote above.

  (I hope not) If you are not comfortable with discussing this move request, then don't. I speak from experience. Paradoctor (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• I original came to support the move with the reasoning that it would be logical. I would read the previously cited WP:TITLEDAB "only as much detail as is necessary to distinguish one topic from another should be used" and the given confusion between Computer checkers and Checkers (video game) as an argument in favor of further disambiguating, there's obviously room to argue a need to further distinguish, even though there isn't an exact title match for a checkers video game. I don't think the WP:COMMONNAME argument holds any water, this is a discussion about the precision of a disambiguator, the base name is checkers. And WP:NCVG is a guideline, I would have countered with Checkers (1952 video game) is also much more WP:PRECISE (policy). With that said, however, I'm going to end up opposing because computer checkers isn't an article title in itself, it redirects to Checkers § Computer checkers, of which, it largely refers to Strachey's Checkers (video game). So I feel that this is the intuitive solution, and further clarification can be accomplished with hatnotes. That said, the move to Checkers (1952 video game) would also be appropriate should the computer checkers or an online checkers article ever get fully written. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for weighing in here, @Bobby Cohn: - agree this line of argument makes sense against renaming. Do you have an opinion on adding a DAMB as in diff? I'm in favor of the DAMB, but looks like we need a 3rd opinion. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

  FWIW the title of the original source article (fr) is still fr:Programme de dames de Christopher Strachey, i.e. Christopher Strachey's Checkers Program. I haven't checked if conventions for WP:NCVG are different on the French Wikipedia. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

  (responding to both) Without being aware of the previous revision history, yes I previously said further clarification can be accomplished with hatnotes as the most clear solution to our readers. As for the French project, it is it's own entity with conventions, prior community consensuses, and P&Gs and has no being on this discussion--just like we can't tell them to change their article title based on this discussion. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Hatnotes

That's myself, @AE, @Bobby Cohn in favor of the hatnotes to clarify article scope, @Paradoctor against. Any others want to weigh in? diff Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)