Talk:Go

[Primary topic for Go: verb vs. game]

It seems the search "Go" and "GO" direct users to different entries in the encyclopedia causing confusion. I attempted to fix the problem by redirecting them together but I lack the skill. Also it seems less than consensus to have those entries refer staight to a disambugation page rather than the most common usage of the term "outside of the verb usage "to go". see entry in Village pump

I agree that articles which merely state dictionary definitions are not suitable for an encyclopedia. However, I'm also a believer in the "principle of least astonishment". In the case of articles like Go, many people who have never heard of the board game would be quite confused at the content of the article if they weren't expecting it. I think we should cater for those who are expecting "Go" to refer to the English language verb, the recent movie, and any other common meanings for the term. I also dont think putting those alternatives at the bottom of this (long, and still growing) article is terribly helpful to such people. Hence I've reverted to the previous revision, where after a brief introductory paragraph the alternate meanings for "Go" are listed. -- Bignose

I have no objection to noting a movie also called that, but noting it is also an English verb is totally unnecessary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Human beings have no trouble handling words with multiple totally unrelated meanings, such as we have here. Unless we want to write an article on the English verb (which is unlikely), there is no need to mention it. Its existence is obvious, as is the fact that this article is dealing with a totally unrelated sense of "Go". Look at other encyclopedias: Britannica, Encarta, etc. -- do any of them begin their article on "Go" by pointing out it is also an English verb? -- no they don't, and nor should we. -- SJK

STRONGLY DISAGREE with SJK: WE DO NEED TO POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS! our purpose is to provide information, "go" as a verb is by far the most common usage, & it is standard practice on wikip to acknowledge the existence of verbs, as necessary, & then provide mini def's & redirects to the wiktionary, as proves most useful. if you look closely in other encyclopedias, they also acknowledge instances where a word has multiple meanings and/or homonyms, especially in cases where one usage is overwhelmingly more common than the others. it would also be a mistake to automatically assume that all users of en.wikip are fluent or even moderately functional in english; many people use this site as a part of learning the languageLx 121 (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Go (album) links to a page about Vertical Horizon's album "Go", not Moby's. As far as I can tell, there is no page about Moby's album of that name. I'm changing this page to reflect that. If there is a page somewhere about Moby's album, or if someone wants to write one, then Go (album) will have to be disambiguated too, I guess.

Moving Go (board game) to Go

I propose to move Go to Go (disambiguation), and, after fixing all redirects, to move Go (board game) to Go. While many English-language users have never heard of the board game Go (I know that I myself did not hear of it until a few years ago), hundreds of millions of people in China, Korea, Japan, and other countries around the world are familiar with and play the game. Having Go as a disambiguation page is akin to having Chess as a disambiguation page–I have no doubt that consensus would rightly oppose this. In the same way, NPOV demands that we consider the usage of the term that is most meaningful for all people, not just for English speakers. NatusRoma 02:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly even know where to begin.

One: hundreds of millions of people around the world play go, yes; but six billion people around the world go to places (e.g. by walking). If we were going to choose based on the popularity and importance of the thing being described, we would want to move Go (verb) to Go, not move Go (board game) to Go. Obviously this is absurd. The question is not what action is most popular, but what meaning the WORD is most popularly linked to. The board game is not called "go" in Chinese, Japanese, or Korean; all three use other words for it instead, though the Japanese one is related. Thus, it is NOT true that worldwide, the word "go" means "go (board game)" to the most people.

Two: What does the sound sequence "go" mean, to most people, worldwide? To start with we would want to check what that sound sequence means in Mandarin Chinese, Hindi, Arabic, etc. But this too is clearly a false path. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we want to know what the ENGLISH WORD "go" means to most people who speak English. Otherwise, we would need to check every article in every Wikipedia to make sure that each word does not have the same sound as some more commonly used word in another language. This is ridiculous.

Three: If we do ask what the English word "go" means to most people who speak English, clearly it's Go (verb) again. But that is not enough reason to replace Go with Go (verb); the board game is important enough that the current method, putting various meanings on Go with links to articles, is probably the best approach.

Four: The problem with the Chess analogy should be obvious: the English word 'chess' does not have more than one important meaning. I have a hard time believing that this proposal was intended seriously. DanielCristofani 10:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion on Talk:Go (board game), I have come to the position that this should remain a disambiguation page, after all. NatusRoma 18:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't go board game be first though.. or easier to find.

Please see Talk:Go (board game) for fresh proposal and much discussion. --Richard New Forest (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny detail.

Having just changed the intro to read:

The game is now popular throughout East Asia and on the Internet. The object of the game is to place stones so they control a larger board territory than one's opponent, while preventing them from being surrounded and captured by the opponent.

, I am wondering whether the last three words are necessary. Who else would surround and capture one's stones? Well, the thing is, in a more complicated board game I can easily imagine an NPC doing it. Is that too obscure a possibility to be worth ruling out? DanielCristofani 03:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

???

What happened to this. Isn't it supposed to be a disam. page? It nows says "Go play WoW" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.155.164 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

confused disamb

this disamb page links to another disamb page, which links to this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.222.41.105 (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Somewhere other than the "see also" link? The circular "see also" links are ok, as two subjects that are related should expect to be linked to each other. If there's a condusing redirect somewhere, it might need fixing, though. --Fru1tbat 13:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Go (Monopoly)"

"Go (Monopoly)" has no obvious reasons to me to be listed on this page. I think it only suggests to play monopoly instead of the original Go. Who would search for this and then why on Wikipedia? I only can think of a situation where someone who has lost his manual to Monopoly wants to look its meaning up very quick. But then why would he look on Wikipedia? I wouldn't in this situation. I'd just type "Monopoly rules" into Google and there I'd get a list of the rules Monopoly rules very fast. The entry also links to the full article on Monopoly and not to an actual paragraph about the "Go"-field itself, where such paragraph per se doesn't make sense at all. Though, the link implies that someone intends to include such a paragraph in future article versions. How do you think about that? 77.130.107.254 (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go (game) description

Before this turns into an edit war, please refer to the manual of style for disambiguation pages, particularly: "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link."

The purpose of a dab page is to help a user find the correct article as quickly as possible. Excessive description is simply not necessary.--ShelfSkewed Talk 14:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The current description by Lx 121 is way too long for a disambig page; the list of aliases is not useful, and the fact that the game is now played all over the world is irrelevant. I suggest reverting back to the original concise description "strategic two-player board game of ancient Chinese origin, using white and black stones" BabelStone (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to include a long list of other names for Go -- if anyone has landed on this page then they already know that the game is called Go. There are already separate redirect pages for weiqi, baduk, etc. BabelStone (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The current reworded description is just fine, although perhaps a little more terse than I'd prefer. But the list of alternate names adds little value for the purposes disambiguating "go". older ≠ wiser 11:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Go!(album)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Go!(album) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 21 § Go!(album) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]