![[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]](images/stone-hello.png "Sensei's Library")
It's not because a streamer has jokingly called something a name that we should turn it into an encyclopaedic article. It's not something we want to teach either. I'm ok with having the page but it's not a go term.
There's a big difference with e.g. crane's nest tesuji which is a real tesuji and the name has stood the test of time.
If we put the goose tesuji on par with real tesuji, SL is going to lose its credibility.
Similarly the scorpion shape is not on par with bamboo joint or table shape.
I'm sympathetic to what you are doing but I don't agree for that matter.
a streamer has jokingly called something a name
Just because a term was coined from a humorous situation doesn't mean that it's solely a joke.
It's not something we want to teach either
Who are "we"? Clearly not the inclusive we.
it's not a go term
If the word is being used as a Go term, it's a Go term.
(not) a real tesuji
Why is it not a "real" tesuji? I gave a simplistic example, but it can take skill to find and follow up a goose tesuji in more complex situations.
the name has stood the test of time
So what you're saying is that Sensei's has to restrict itself to staying ten or twenty years behind the linguistic curve? For what purpose?
SL is going to lose its credibility.
And its "credible" to have pages devoted to Hikaru no Go characters? I seem to remember Arno writing a page on the topic "Everyone can have their own sandcastle, and there's no need to knock them down."
Similarly the scorpion shape is not on par with bamboo joint or table shape.
The fact that the scorpion shape is not as old or universally well known a term as those examples does not mean that it is not a term that is in active use, which it is, in communities that you are apparently not a part of.
If you want to tag the goose tesuji as "humour", that's fine. It is an amusing term. And if you want to make it a subpage of the Clossius article, fine. But I can't see the advantage of removing the content from the site.
Especially when we have so many articles on, say, obscure amateur tournaments of the 2000s...
Also, on a practical note, if this article isn't added to a terms list (and I didn't intend to do that) the reader will only encounter it in one of two ways.
1. Searching for it, in which case they are obviously interested
2. Seeing it linked on Clossius' page, which they're on because they were interested in Clossius, who invented and uses the term
How would that translate to them becoming "incredulous" of SL?
Oh, and I note that you were completely fine with retaining Uberdude Go Association, which is literally a joke page.
Hmm?
Yes, because it's a humor page. There's nothing wrong with that.
On a Wiki you have to be willing to accept some debate about the content creation. I don't own this Wiki, but I'm part of the contributors and librarians, so I flag something if I don't agree with the way it is presented. If many librarians join in to defend Goose Tesuji as a well known technical term, then who am I to object?
This has happened numerous times in the past, where we moved content to personal subpages or flagged as humor or otherwise.
There have also been countless times you made a contribution which was not questioned. It's nothing personal, of course it isn't.
John F. Two-person spats tend to turn nasty, so can I put in a third-party view, not to assert rightness, but to show there is scope for compromise? First, I think entries need to earn their place on SL and those that do have to be verifiable and maintainable by other people. I see no evidence that "goose tesuji" meets any of those criteria. Evidence may exist, but I don't see it. Apart from that, it has no connection with geese, tesujis or humour, and completely lacks a definition. But I would have said the same sort of things about "table shape". I see no table, to misquote Lord Nelson. On the other hand, I thought "scorpion" was a good attempt at providing a term for a very common shape. This sort of thing is done even in the main go-playing countries. I very much doubt that "octopus in a kettle" appears here, but you can find it in Japanese go books. My compromise suggestion is that all such terms should appear on a new page called Neologisms. Once it can be established that a term has been widely taken up (a mere assertion that it is used on OGS not being enough for that, however), a separate page can be created.
I'm very liberal to the existence of such pages, less so with the labelling of Go Term. And it only takes one other voice to lift the credibility of something like scorpion shape.
I'm not (trying to be) nasty at all. Just having some healthy debate on how pages should be presented and perceived within our library.
If it discourages activity, I'll try even harder not to be nasty :)
Thanks John for tuning in!
I don't mind John's compromise idea of a Neologisms article.
We can place new terms there, in sections with aliases and a table of contents.
If multiple users give their assent to the legitimacy of a term, in the term's section on the Neologisms page; or some citations of its use in external content are produced, it can be promoted to its own article.
By the way, on the topic of the scorpion shape.
The root of the term scorpion shape is the extremely well established teacher In-Seong Hwang, who is EGF 8d and a former yunguseng, not to mention the head of the Yunguseng Dojang school for ten years.
I think that if you asked most young online players to compare claims of legitimacy, they'd describe In-Seong Hwang as the authority and Sensei's Library as the source to be consumed with care, not the other way around.
So I can't see any reason for the article to be ushered off to the new term ghetto.
Also, back on the subject of the goose tesuji, I can't see how anyone who read the article could say the term "completely lacks a definition".
The definition is supplied on the second and third lines, after the numerals "1." and "2.".
Fair enough. I let go of my resistance. I'm not super happy with "goose tesuji" being labeled as a "go term" but your positive effort is good enough for me. I don't want to act like a stubborn guardian, just exercise a healthy amount of quality control. I hope it comes across as sufficiently constructive.
One of the main reasons I wanted to add the article is because I don't know of an equivalent term, and I think this is a case of "if there is a name, know it".
Is there a term already in use, with an article, to describe (to quote)?:
An endgame technique: a move on the outside of the opponent's territory that asks him to play a move inside it, due to threatening to exploit a weakness; or the actual exploitation of that defect, after the opponent having refused to defend.
If there is then I'd also be perfectly happy to merge the goose tesuji article into it.
There are two aspects to this:
1) when liberties are filled towards the end of the game, a player will often have to fill points inside the territory to protect. This is hardly a technique, let alone a tesuji, and for a concept I'd think damezumari (shortage of liberties) suffices.
2) a sacrifice technique that forces the opponent to fill MORE points inside their territory than what is expected under (1), by increasing the capture with 1 stone but the liberties to be filled by more. I believe this is captured as semedori.
Here's another idea.
We rename the article to something boring like "Wall-adjacent endgame force", make "Goose tesuji" an alias, and put the Clossius story into a section marked as anecdotal.