|Table of contents||Index of sub-pages|
Phase seems to be the step beyound basic structure. We don't have one. Even the 'back to parent' on the right is bad for pages with multiple sequences of origin. Important - What is actually happenning is that we're creating a bunch of lose pages (Old style) with awkward names and yes we add links....
A much needed list of changes that need to be made to old systematic joseki pages to tidy them up and update them. I will try to help with this when my home internet connection gets back up and running :( --Evan
I'm having a problem with the current syntex... What is it??? Another problem I'm having is that nobody (or at least almost nobody) but me is creating any pages, small edits here and there... The problem is I'm starting to doubt if people really want this - Do they care why joseki are played the way they are? I really dunno... I'm spent quite some time today studying mistakes at certain avalanche sequences... I did get some help on kgs and I'm doing this for myself but I don't have too much free time left and if it wasn't for my leg I wouldn't be by the comp all this time... And I don't think I alone would be able to cover 1/100th or what's needed for a couple of complex joseki... (Not to mention the amount of mistake a 42k can make there....) Hehe if I go on, this might turn into a blog, lol
Anyway... I'm sure a lot of people can help but they just don't seem interested... Once again - Some serious cleanning up, sorting and summarising the info and putting clear objectives as well as showing certain pages (like some of the mistakes in joseki (which'll be) covered) might make it more welcoming... And yes the links....
(Did I mention how many unanwsered questions are here?)
Ohh yea, and I really dislike the long page names at the top with -s and such... I'd preffer them being shorter even if they looked a bit messier... This probably should be dealt with in a more techinal way... I wonder how... If we could come up with better names for sequences, we could request a mask for the title or something? So that a few different pages would have same titles such as "Joseki - Small Avalanche" or "Small Avalanche, Joseki" or something instead of the "Systematic Joseki 3-4 5-4 ..." and the "summary..." below... Reuven (Or maybe hide these altogether? they still appear in the title of the html and the edit will still point to the same page... And if it's linking u'r worried about, make a small This page link somewhere at the top right(as an actual part of the standart page of SL)?)
Hmm and as for the comments about how trustable and all the variations would be... In time they should be as trustable as any other page here such as the BQMs and other pages where the users actually study the situation... Also from my kyu-ish point of view, having the refutations and variations here would be a great aid for the study... (You could treat it as a note before the wme, whoever does it...)
And I was wondering, what's the chance to rename all current SystematicJoseki... pages to SJ...? That'd sure shorten the links... (Or maybe if this project is to resume, we should be thinking of another name? how about CJ(corner joseki)? or just J(joseki)?)
My opinion, as I have hinted at before, is that the systematic joseki namescheme shoulde be kept and used for all pages, but only as an alias or as a temporary name. The actuall page titles should be suitable to the page, eg. "systematic joseki 3-4" should just become "3-4 point", "systematic joseki 4-4 3-3" becomes "4-4 point, 3-3 invasion" or something. The idea here is to remain as flexible as possible, but then again we would still need a general namescheme anyway for all the other pages where no suitable page title name comes to mind. Tricky...unfortuanately I'm still stuck without the internet at home, so will only be able to help every so often for the time being. --Evan
Hmm.. Some edits here and there... Anyway - Looking at the SJ page, I suddenly remember what phase 2 was about... We should finish discussing the open issues, please take a look at this page... (And while you're at it, feel free to summarise any part of it.. It's a wiki after all...) And get to that "shallow" coverage of common sequences to make a base and create the linkage with the other SL pages to make it of use to people and create growth potential.... Reuven
I would suggest one addition - perhaps description of a joseki should include a set of conditions under which it makes sense to play it. I have tried to devise something like this for avalanche joseki. larsen
When two sequences lead to the same position -
Arno: dear 184.108.40.206: please use the MinorEdit checkbox when doing such small edits. I don't understand what disabling the links in the diagrams should accomplish? Basically that means that every time a new page gets created someone has to go through all existing pages and make the link again.
What about new pages? Should they be minor? Reuven
Arno: depends. If you add few pages then no minor edit. If you are adding a bulk of e.g. 20 pages at once, then maybe you should minor edit them and make a remark on e.g. MessageBoard about the new pages.
Evan: Pages are generally going to have at most 2 links, disabled or not, to that page. This is especially the case for pages that haven't even been created yet! Disabling the links makes the diagrams look cleaner, and doesn't send the user to dead ends all the time. If someone want to create a new page, most of the time all (s)he will have to do is enable the link on the parent page, then start creating the page. That's it.
mAsterdam: Yes, that is what I meant. Using tenuki as a way to get to them has an artificial feel about it - for handicaps that is, I guess it is allright for the san ren sei (showing just one corner, else it gets into side patterns). How to deal with Invasions, though? Are they off the ToDo list for now?
3-3 Invasions under 4-4 (with or without extra stones) are for example, planed to be included with Tenuki... Even if we don't recreate all of these pages, we can link to old pages from such positions. But as I see it, it should be included.
but side patterns... i don't know if it's possible... either way i don't think that any of us thought of it being here... unless it's a followup to some joseki... but then searching for them'd be horrible...
Moved to /Template.
And another proposition - We need to keep a track of "old" joseki pages related to current postion in page - Could be done by adding a ---- separator under which we could keep them listed as [link_num|link_addr] avoiding cluttering the page but keeping them linked until the material there is transferred, removed or made alias.) --Reuven
Sounds good --Evan
This is definitely possible but it's not a project for 2 or 3 people...And SL folks seem to be ignoring us altogether.
Patience! Do the basic stuff first, the common joseki moves. Leave tenuki follow ups until the end, unless they are important. -Evan
Some changes I am highly unsure of, they're just experiments really which I might decide to revert a few hours later. So I don't want to go to the effort of changing the rules only to have to change them back after I change my mind Evan
Well please do list them here so that we can consider them and add them to the list.
nachtrabe I've produced a /Template page. This is similar to a "Cliff's Notes" version of the "Layout" page since I wanted something that could be copied wholesale when making a new page and that had only minimal explanations of what went where. It incorporates some suggestions from here on what the layout should look like, along with some things that aren't on the layout page but appear in some of the actual pages being put up. If you don't feel it is appropriate given the /Layout page feel free to mark it for deletion :-)
If I get some free time and write a "Systematic Joseki Generating Program" (something that takes some input from the command line and turns it into a systematic joseki file) the page could also provide just a link to that program.
maybe the template shouldn't have too many explanations? this is what the /layout page is for i think. template should be a fast copy and paste. I also think it should display the source rather than the page itself so that people wouldn't have to "edit" and "cancel" to copy and paste, what do you think? or at least have both? (but then it seems a bit weird...) Reuven
nachtrabe I like both of these ideas, particularly the bit about showing the source instead of the formatted document. I'd suggest getting the template finalized before doing that though. Also, as a caveat, I think brief explanations in <> brackets are called for just so someone can look at the template and nothing else and still create a standard-looking page.
I'm also considering making a couple of demo pages... And I think that excercises and such should also be in the |>... We should also decide on what is it that we want in the "moves description" below the diagram and what is it that we put next to it. Also because we have that much space under the diagrams with the first move or 2, we could add a special link to a list all such as the page you created. But we should consider what such a page should have? (Arno said it's possible to add support, so we could ask some open/close tags, the content in between of which would be automatically put there, but...) And we have to see how it works with the sort by position pages suggested earlier (which we haven't created or discussed). * If not now, then it should be done soon - the evaluation and consideration of the current structure. * Ohh and btw, because of the current naming, showing reffered by and such on the left makes no sense.. :S - I'm not sure what to say about it now... Just a point for thought. Reuven
As for the excercises - We could create a sub page called /excercises which would be a a path. And then add excercises: with [#] links at the side bar. I'll demonstrate what I mean in 30 mins. :) (We should also consider, how "deep" they're allowed in the tree - They higher they are, the easier, it'd be to access a whole lot of them.
Seems like subpages can't be set to be a specific kind of page... Anyway, what do you think about their current location? It really bugs me at 3-4 6-3! :S Reuven
Guys, if we don't get out act together, It'll remain dead for god knows how long, once again!
I won't have access to gobase for atleast a few days, plus I've been busy recently. Hopefully I'll get a lot more done in the next few days. If it's stagnant for a few days there's no need to worry, but at the moment rapid progress is being made (mostly thanks to you!) so the future is looking good in my eyes. -Evan
I'll resume for now then, hopping that some more people will be joinning soon! (HINT, PEOPLE, HINT;)
Note: Also the part where the moves are described should probably describe moves by reason, not just a - tsuke... that is if possible, otherwise "joseki" would do.
nachtrabe For exercises, showall, etc, would it be better to put them on a new SL page (e.g., systematicjoseki3463exercise ) or on a subpage (e.g., systematicjoseki3463/exercise )? The latter seems to make more sense with the nature of the /Discussion pages, and gives us a little bit of an automatic menu (since subpages are listed).
Another important thing - Every Joseki page needs to be marked as Joseki! (Hmm, guys, what about the difficulty mark? Should intermediate be used as a standard? Or perhaps we should just mark them as "joseki"?) Reuven
I also took the liberty to post a question at the meta discussion, please check it out!
nachtrabe: I'd suggest "Intermediate" by default, with maybe "Beginner" on a few basic variations? in positions close to their final states and "Advanced" or "Expert" on the Taisha, Avalanche, and Magic Sword.
Evan: After comparing an old joseki page to the SJ page that is has been made an alias too, a bad feeling hit me. When you first look at a systematic joseki page, especially when you are not used to their layout, the first thing you see and read is the big bold title. In the above case you would read "Systematic Joseki 3-4 Tn 6-4", huh? What is this code? why is the title so ugly? never mind the person thinnks, I'll read the next line which is the second thing that dominates the page: "Summary - Joseki - Komoku Tenuki Ootakamoku" huh? aaagh, more uninteligible coded nonsense, these senseis libary pages sure are horrible, the person concludes. The old joseki page, I might add, had a nice readable title "34 63 enclosures"
So I'm afraid, very afraid. Our systematic joseki page names are great, fantastic, but they are code, not english. Code is good for sorting and labeling pages, they are good page names even in that they are easy to link too. But as page titles, __code is horrible. When this project was just starting out, when I was obsesed with creating nice organised standard pages, I didn't think about how these pages would look to someone who doesn't understand or care about the systematic joseki concept, but was just refered to a SJ page to find out some information.
At the moment, the systematic joseki pages are just too user unfriendly for them to become a bigger part of this site, we need to do something about it.
Reuven: This could be partially resolved by making the "code-titles" alias to real pages... However not all moves would have as preety a name...
Evan: Yes, I think that is a good solution where possible
Did you notice how kogo uses 6-4 not 4-6 so that 3-4 Tn 6-4 and 6-4 Tn 3-4 would have same direction? Maybe it's not too late to change it?
Ahh yes, one more question remains. Should k, f, h, j in the diagram at the top be included in diagrams? They aren't joseki.
Note that I've contacted Jan van der Steen and he doesn't approve the usage of gobase to search for moves in positions. We should ask if we may link to games on go4go or nihonki-in or perhaps use some program for searching of interesting moves. As well as asking about a possible information relation with kogo? Reuven
Dieter: I do not understand this at all. I understand the sense and sensitivity of Intellectual Property but I do not understand why anyone would object mentioning which source one has used to analyze a subject, especially if that souorce also freely uses that subject.
I'm employed in the navigational business. I wonder what happens when someone uses a navigational tool to search for a best route, then publishes that best route on the net.
1) You cannot take intellectual property of the route: it is out there for everyone. Anyone can take that route consciously or not.
2) So, publishing a route cannot be illegal.
3) Remain: two options. One is too remain silent about your source. In which case the source cannot object, because it is impossible to prove you used his tool for producing this route. The other is to mention your source. This is in my opinion rather good publicity than violation of intellectual property. As a company, I would not subject against publicity.
Publishing the algorithm or the upload the software altogether, that's a different thing.
I see it the same way as you do. And it could be said that proving that the source is ?, would be hard but in this case it's different - Logs of searches would do it and there's no obligation to provide the service so we'd just end up blocked... And besides, posting the query wasn't for nothing... It was really done hoping for approval but even if it's not the case, I will respect it and won't use the search for massive adding. However if I find something interesting and search for it and study it using gobase and/ or other tools, I might later add it as it's my own knowladge. Reuven (I wouldn't however know wherether I should include the sources which could be done for publicity and recognition like you said because I wouldn't want somebody to blame me for "misusing" the service!)
Dieter: Well, I've contributed to Kogo, adding variations from books, even if they were my own understanding of those variations. I know other people who made the same kind of contributions in a major way. It's all very very sad. I really can't wait for the pros to copyright their games. I know people who will regret to have used copyright to their favour, and it will be all the harder to unite against this ultimate form of intellectual property.
macelee: Please feel free to make links to go4go games. Please make sure to use the new URL such as http://www.go4go.net/v2/modules/collection/sgfview.php?id=1000 instead of the old one. Other usage is ok too as long as it does not significantly consume my server resources. My game viewing Java applet supports a parameter which jumps the game to a specified move upon loading. This might be useful for displaying joseki positions and I can turn it on if there is interest.
Wow that'd be great!
Alright, we also need to rethink if the placement of the statistics in such a visible place while the moves meanings are thrown below somewhere, makes sense. Maybe we should switch the two? Or perhaps combine them somehow? After all in time when this is used for study and moves have good descriptions used for browsing, wouldn't it be annoying to go below each time? Reuven
The section explaining each move may be of variable lenght, where as the stats are always pretty much the same lenght on each page. Therefore, for reasons of neatness and flexibility, I say we keep it as it is. Evan
Yes your point is probably what mg was thinking of. However we should think what we're making it for... For learnning? Or statistical study? I'm not sure they can be sapreated, however if somebody is interested in browsing by meanning and needs to go down each time in the page... What do you think? And more important even if you'd agree... Do we have an alternative of some kind? Reuven
nachtrabe: I'm still not even sure the statistics should even be included. They aren't being filled in, the database information is too critical to the results (some joseki get played more or less now than they did even five years ago, much less 50), and they aren't all that useful unless you are analyzing a pro's style. I also wouldn't consider "Last time played" all that important--does it really matter? Does anyone keep track of the pro games closely enough to know and be motivated enough to update all of the (potentially thousands) of Systematic Joseki pages when they go in?
In summary, I believe having dated information is kind of silly.
Evan: Unless I get any objections in the next day or two, I'm going to get rid of the statistics on all systematic joseki pages, leaving just the discussion of moves and history etc.
I'm not sure it should be removed. Gobase isn't the only place to take statistics from and they may be added later. And even if addition is possible i think that first played and last played have to remain even if they don't link to any specific game. And somebody should ask go4go and nihonki in if we can link there...
The first time a joseki was played is kind of nice to know and, unless there is a correction, it never changes. But the last time? I lack the ambition to even keep track of that for my favorite players (and the expertise to do so even if I had the time), much less for several hundred players playing games all of the time with tens of thousands of possible joseki.
The idea was to say if the joseki is still considered a joseki. This indeed may be achieved by "played since 2000" like mg suggested or simple by marking outdated joseki. (Of course only if there's a reason not just because no one feels like playing it)
EvanI agree with all of Nachtrabe's points, I suggest getting rid of 'first played' too, all this historic information should be written in the history section, which should be moved to where the stats are now.
nachtrabe Hm, I have no strong feelings about this and I like keeping it with the historic information but would prefer keeping that historic information at the bottom. The nice thing about the current /Template design is that information is placed in roughly the order that people (or at least I :-) care about. My own experience has been that I want to know:
I was originally thinking that historic information kind of goes together with the notes about the current position. But after seeing your template page, I think I am agreeing with you that it is better placed at the bottem of the page where it is now :)
Arno: as for the "show all continuations ..." experiment on that page: if you need functions that SL could/should provide to make things easier/ more interactive (and this would be such a function) I am happy to discuss adding such features to SL.
Reuven: That would be great but what diagrams should there be? With comments? How would one know that a certian situation appears only because of a ladder and such... :S
I added the "show all continuations" because often you're looking for a general overview of possible outcomes rather than a particular joseki sequence. At the moment though it's very unorderly, and should probably be sorted in some way.
Yes but shouldn't (Show by results) be covering it? It'll be displaying all results divided by types of results as I see it.
Evan: As for possible additions to the functionality of SL; different coloured squares on the interactive diagrams would be the biggest improvement I could think of. Would be useful for the whole of SL, not just the systematic joseki part. I guess there may be a few problems implementing it though?
Arno: Should be easy to implement. Didn't think that this might be useful, but why not.
Evan: I've been thinking about what kind of colour would be needed for this to work, and they would need to be subtle and blend into the diagram as well as the current dark orange does. This will be tricky. The only think I can currently picture would be a colour in between the dark orange of the current links and the light orange of the board. The idea would be that these plain orange colour links stand out less, showing that they are not as important as the current dark orange ones.
Don't know about the board, but something like green for good, and red for bad seems the standart...
That could work, but at the moment the orange on orange board works nice and subtlely, I wouldn't want big contrasting bright colours.
Another little thing, Arno, could we come up with some mark/way to mark pages the data was transferred out of to the SJ project, so that once we're past the starting up and it's going, can actually generate a list of them to change to alias or be deleted?
Arno: what prevents you from having a link of the bottom of the page which says "Content from: ..." like we do have "See also:" links right now?
I was thinking of a mark that would allow automatically listing them (if? no -) when we decide to move delete them or make them alias to the SJ pages.
And is it possible to create a temporary index pages which would list all pages which start with "SystematicJoseki"? This way we could apply any style or other decisions made during the early stages easily (Well at least looking for the pages would be easiser).
Ohh right.. :)
moved to Systematic Joseki/Basic Concept.
I note that Reuven, in the posting for 2005-01-30, agreed that there is no need to change old joseki pages but he has eliminated the contents of the old page 3464 Enclosure and made that an alias for a systematic joseki page. I think that the old page was more useful than the systematic joseki page which does not have the same contents. The old page should be restored. A link on it to the systematic joseki page would be all right. --Bob McGuigan
I did look at the old page. The new systematic joseki page has three unexplained reference letters, which is confusing. I still think old, well written and informative pages should not be deleted in favor of systematic joseki pages until the SJ pages are finished. Even then I am not in favor of deleting useful old pages.--Bob
I don't think there's a need for 2 exactly identical pages - I'm not too sure about that particular position, but with 2 notes, it'll be as good as the original page with 2 notes. Other than the extra browsable links and the SJ title, there'll be no difference, right? It's different from cases where there's a summary on page. (Althought I think it too could could be added there and sub variations under moves explain - No need to make all vars browsable if it's a relatively "finished" position as far as the corner situation in a general case's concerned...) Reuven
I don't think the two pages are even approximately, let alone exactly, identical. For me the language on the original page is preferable. --Bob
As at the moment the style of the systematic joseki pages feel slightly alien in comparison to the rest of the site, I have to agree with Bob that the old normal pages shouldn't be replaced with SJ pages - yet. Evan
Arno: I just added the missing bit of information from the old page. Granted the second diagram is not there. I also moved the discussion link as it should be reserved for the /discussion subpage, I think. That should make everyone happy?
Evan: When and where old joseki pages are converted into systematic joseki pages, or made alias's, the new systematic joseki page should not be named "systematic joseki x-y .." but should have a more readable title like the pages they replace.
In other words, the "systematic joseki..." pagename scheme should be considered temporary, as while it may be practical, it reads horribly! In the future this namescheme should become be used for creating usefull alias's to better titled systematic joseki pages. For example "systematic joseki 3-4" could be retitled "3-4 point" when and if the right time comes. Thougts anyone?
Bob Myers: There's something more basic here."Enclosures" and "josekis" are different. An enclosure is a configuration of stones on the board, whereas a joseki is a sequence. To think of the enclosure here as a "joseki" where Black played on the 3-4 point, then tenukied, then played on the 4-6 point is weird. It could just have easily been played the other way around. In either case, it's not a "joseki". (One definition of joseki: it has to involve moves by both players, at a minimum!) In all these respects, coopting enclosures into the Systematic Joseki system, whatever its other merits, is wrong.
Dieter: I do not agree with this. An enclosure is as likely a follow up to a corner move as a corner approach. There are other standard sequences which include playing elsewhere by either colour, only it is not the first move. The fact that moves are interchangeable is irrelevant to me. The difference between sequences and configurations too, but we may run into linguistic issues again. The present becomes past: when continuing from standard sequences, do you take the order in which they were played into account ?
Bill: There are a couple of points, here. One is that, as Bob McGuigan points out, the new 34 - 64 enclosure page is not as good as the original. Another has to do with the different kinds of joseki. Most of the joseki in joseki books are opening joseki. There are enclosure joseki, but they are middle game joseki (despite the fact that some of them can occur in the opening). As such, they are much more dependent upon the rest of the board than opening joseki. Also, the enclosure typically reduces the local temperature significantly, and is thus the end point of a joseki. For these reasons, the plethora of letters indicating possible plays in the diagram on that page is misleading, even if there are statistics about how frequently they are played. You cannot intelligently talk about almost all of them without reference to the rest of the board.
My suggestion for joseki pages, then, is for them to link to enclosure pages. And, sooner or later, that enclosure pages provide links to enclosure joseki. Doing so would highlight the fact that the enclosure is the end point of early joseki in the corner, and a starting point for later joseki.
A second minor point: Ootakamoku is not a general way to refer to the 4-6 point, but rather that point played as the first point in a corner. In that sense, its use on this page is wrong.
mAsterdam: Enclosures are not joseki, right. If a specific position is interesting in its own right, anyone can make a page on that position. This actually happened to the 3-4 6-4 enclosure. However, subsequently all information got moved from that page to other pages, and the only thing left was a remark about an often played move. Now it's sparse content is SJ-ified. Not really a problem, considering the the page as it was before the SJ-ification; there was hardly any content left. On the incorrect use of Ootakamoku: I edited it, I hope it is correct now.
Yes I wanted to say that the title was "Summary - Strategy" rather than "Summary - Joseki" and that it's possible to include other pages, if only for the sake of browsability... I would also like to note that the problem with a number of paths leading to the same position exists with other joseki pages and that it's no reason to treat it otherwise. The solution on the page is adding the other path using "x-x(y-y)". Also mAsterdam, the title (summary) isn't really the path there but a name for the position, maybe the path under it in unnessacery? Reuven
mAsterdam: I do not see the relevance of the prominent strategy link there. One of of the aspects of a position is: How did we get here? Is it constructed or do we see it in actual play? In this case, the position is reached in two ways in actual professional play. I would like to see these plays on the enclosure page even if it would not have anything to do with joseki pages. As it happens, though, well respected sequences do lead to enclosures.
Well sure paths have to be there, only I was thinking that they shouldn't appear under the title which should represent the position... But never mind that :) Reuven
I have a couple of things I would like to ask the community.
1. Minor - Can we use History/ Information about moves from kogos?
2. How serious, is it to the community - I'm not asking about contributions, I already realised that the initial step will be done by a few as most people are afraid to contribute to a project which may not succeed (How silly it sounds in a wiki - Where projects succeed or fall as a resualt (of lack/) of contributions from the public!). I'm asking instead if I (and the other contributors) may transfer data from other pages AND ask them to be removed or make the alias (depending on the pages value) to pages on Systematic Joseki. Please consider before you anwser as this is a very serious question which may affect us all and sls future%%% Reuven
I don't see why other pages need to be deleted and aliases redirected and I think saying this is important to SL's future is sensationalistic. Finally, I don't see the point of recreating Kogo's dictionary on SL. In fact, I'm not convinced that any systematic treatment of joseki is appropriate for SL. As for Kogo's dictionary, or any other dictionary for that matter, including the one you are constructing, there are inevitably going to be incorrect sequences in it and it will become a full time job keeping it up to date. In short: transferring data from other SL pages? Why not, it's a wiki. Asking for deletion of other joseki pages in favor of yours? No. Redirecting aliases to your pages depending on the value of the original pages? Not automatically. Bob McGuigan
Bill: As for whether it is OK to take stuff from Kogo's? Surely you need permission. Why not get it?
Morten: As for Kogo's I agree with Bill - please send an email to Gary and see what he thinks about it.
As for the other notions; personally I feel that the SystematicJoseki 'project' is very interesting - like many things, it's not what we had in mind when SL was started, but having an open mind is what has made SL moderately popular and diverse. As it is today, the SL 'wikiengine' is not really suited for this, but with a bit of tweaking, that can be overcome. Arno and I discussed how to better structure joseki pages at the end of last year - spookily, Reuven then started this in January...
However, it is clear to me that the SystematicJoseki is no 'more' or 'less' than any other SL page, (nor am I sure whether their existence will influence SLs future :-). So, first of all, they are not 'Reuvens' pages (as Bob wrote above) but SL pages. Copying from existing pages is of course OK but I cannot see a need to delete the 'old' pages or redirect them. In keeping with SL tradition, the proof of the pudding is in the eating - if the 'new' pages ultimately attract the discussion, get the 'right updates' an WMEs and the old ones 'stagnate' then this is something which can be looked at later. What I do suggest that you do is to link to the 'new' pages from the 'old' ones, where relevant.
Yes you're right... Only time will show... :)
Morten BTW, Reuven (and other SystematicJoseki-ers), I think you're doing a great job - I realised that my comments might appear negative - honestly not my intention.
Evan: Got to agree with the others; we can't be asking for approval for the replacement of the old pages, when what we're asking to replace them with doesn't yet really exist, or atleast is still very much in its infancy. As for "sensationalism", I think what Reuven is getting at is if we delete and replace all the old joseki pages, this is a big change, so the question of whether and when to do so is no doubt an important question. I think you got the wrong end of the stick here. I do find it strange that while it was pretty much agreed that the old joseki pages could do with updating and standardising, now that we've taken this idea a little further a few people seem to object to it.
Yes you're right, no need to change old pages... Other than linking from them so that people who browse SL (Yes seems like not everybody is a Recent Changes junkie;) could access SJ in a more natural way... Reuven