Wikipedia

Talk:David Pritchard (chess player)

Latest comment: 11 months ago by 76.14.125.159 in topic Prisoner of War story
Learn more about this page

Other books

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

he has written other books, one about Mahjong, and I believe one about other board games in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.109.225.44 (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

too many direct quotes

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article has far too many direct quotes from other sources. These need to be rewritten to not be direct quotes. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely (agree). Have restructured the article so content flow makes more sense. (Next step to paraphrase and strip the excessive quotes.) But not today! ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Times article

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Times article that much of the article is based on is here: [1]. At least I think it is, unfortunately it's paywalled so I can't see it. Might be useful if you are able to read it. --LukeSurl t c 11:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Pritchard (chess player). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 17 November 2019

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago30 comments20 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: pages not moved to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

– WP:CONCISE and WP:TITLECON Wikipedia's convention is to use, for example, "Foo (baseball)" instead of "Foo (baseball player)", or "Foo (tennis)" instead of "Foo (tennis player)". Chess should be no different. Nobody will confuse humans with chess boards. Sinobball (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose. WP:CONCISE is not "the least amount of words", but the "least amount words it takes to make the title clear". "(chess)" should be used for topics about chess itself, such as objects and moves, while "(chess player)" should be used for individuals. Simon Webb isn't a chess object, but he is a chess player. To refute your claim about names that cannot be confused. Without knowing the topic or viewing the article, is Ruy Lopez a human or chess-related? This should stay as is, as it's WP:CONSISTENT with a better naming convention used by football, which uses "(footballer)"--Gonnym (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • To address your first point, which one of these moves will make the title less clear? Secondly, if there were a player named Ruy Lopez we can definitely use Ruy Lopez (chess player) for him. Finally, how is "chess player" consistent with "footballer" when there is one more word? In your WP:CONSISTENT argument you are also ignoring thousands of biographies here related to basketball, volleyball, badminton, rugby, table tennis, softball, hockey, water polo, lacrosse, .... that do not use the word "player". They have somehow managed to be clear. Sinobball (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. I can't imagine why WP:TITLECON would apply. The addition of a disambiguator to a title automatically makes it inconsistent with comparable articles that don't need a disambiguator. Trying to apply WP:CONCISE is equally silly.
This seems like a classic case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I have never had any trouble finding articles about particular chess players. But the day after this change, I won't be able to find articles that I have found before.
I should ask, what will happen to Wikilinks -- will somebody have to go around and fix all the Wikilinks to the above articles? Bruce leverett (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
That is generally done by bots. --SubSeven (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
The old titles would remain as redirects and continue to function as they do now. No one would have to do anything. Station1 (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the clarification. Indeed, I had noticed that there were some redirects out there in which "XXX (football player)" was redirected to "XXX (football)". And of course it could work the other way. If the proposer thinks it would be useful to have "Larry Evans (chess)" out there, he could create it as a redirect to "Larry Evans (chess player)". I can't speak for the other participants in this discussion, but I certainly would not object to that. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
I was thinking the same thing. Although I actually have no objection to this proposal, it seems there is no consensus for it, so once it's closed there's no reason not to turn those red links into redirects. Then anyone who wants to use the short version can do so. Station1 (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. The page titles are fine as they are. These people are not "chess", they are "chess players", so the current disambiguation is appropriate. This is proposed because "(chess)" is shorter than "(chess player)" and equally clear? Well it is shorter, but Wikipedia is not paper, and it is definitely not equally clear. This is a solution in search of a problem. Quale (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • And someone has to wade through about 115 entries obeying all these move requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. Completely unnecessary. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Support - other sports, such as baseball, basketball, and tennis, do not add the word "player" in disambiguators, and I don't see how chess should be different. The argument that people are not chess is beside the point, as no reader will confuse people with chess pieces. -Zanhe (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
There is not all that much consistency in other sports. For instance, I found Luis Hernández (footballer) and Marta (footballer), and that was just on the first page of search results. Moreover I do not see any advantage in having chess consistent with other sports; how closely are chess and other sports connected in the real world? But if you really want to make other sports consistent with chess, why not modify the other sports? Bruce leverett (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Further to Bruce's point, behold just a small selection of articles using "(X player)" as a disambiguator, e.g. Phil Taylor (darts player), Mark Williams (snooker player), Henry Slade (rugby player), John Hennigan (poker player), Martin Knight (squash player). It's not like chess articles are the sole exception to some otherwise universal pattern of maximally concise disambiguators. Colin M (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. Completely unnecessary and potentially confusing moves. These people are players not objects.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose, as it creates article titles that may be potentially confusing where, under the current naming, this problem does not exist. Schwede66 17:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose, to differentiate between articles such as "Rook (chess)" and the actual players. --Gereon K. (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per above, although, as mentioned above, would encourage creation of redirects for the alternate red links. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per nom and WP:CONCISE. And I don't understand the opposition. Confusing? Because David Pritchard (chess) and Rook (chess) both use chess as disambiguator someone might think David Pritchard is a chess piece? Or that Rook is a chess player's name? I don't understand that "confusing" argument, and don't see any other opposing argument. Yes, just chess IS concise; chess player is not. Hopefully the closer will not count !votes but will evaluate the arguments based on how well rooted they are in policy and guidelines. --В²C ☎ 22:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose It will possibly be confusing so CONCISE is not obvious. Also there are many articles using "(footballer)" instead of "(football)", "(pianist)" instead of "(piano)", etc, so I disagree with the comment that "(chess player)" is inconsistent. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose for now. If other sports bios have adopted a different naming convention for their articles, then it should be resolved somewhere else. --RaviC (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. Pritchard was not a chess. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
    And Bill Smith (American football) is not an American football, Willie Smith (basketball) is not a basketball, Billy Smith (rugby league) is not a rugby league, Billy Smith (ice hockey) is not an ice hockey, William Smith (Medal of Honor) is not a medal of honor, William Alexander Smith (Boys' Brigade) is not a Boys' Brigade, William A. Smith (Iowa) is not an Iowa, and Billy Smith (SNL) is not an SNL. So what? And those are just a few examples from the William Smith dab page. So... what's your point? How is "Pritchard was not a chess" a reason to oppose? --В²C ☎ 17:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. The way other sports handle this is not consistent, and the more specific chess player is better, as per the Ruy Lopez example above. For example, the alternative Anton Smirnov's are Anton Smirnov (footballer), not Anton Smirnov (football) and Anton Smirnov (figure skater), not Anton Smirnov (skating). Greenman (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Greenman, yes, the way other sports handle this is not apparently consistent because the CONCISE disambiguation varies depending on the sport. In the case of football, it is ambiguous (Association vs. American), and footballer is a commonly used CONCISE term for association football players, while American football is the CONCISE way to identify those players (there is no need for American football player). Similarly, skating is also ambiguous. It could be figure skater, speed skater or roller derby skater, so figure skater is the preferable CONCISE term in that case. Speaking of roller derby, how do you think those players are disambiguated when necessary? You guessed it: Ronnie Robinson (roller derby). Because roller derby is the CONCISE way to disambiguate players in roller derby, just like American football, basketball, tennis (e.g., Brian Baker (tennis); see also Category:American male tennis players), ice hockey and other activities I mentioned in my comment to SmokeyJoe just above are the CONCISE way to categorize those respective players. And for chess players, just chess is the obvious CONCISE unambiguous disambiguator, just as the name of the sport is the CONCISE unambiguous disambiguator for many sports I just noted. So in terms of picking the CONCISE uambiguous disambiguator as appropriate for each sport; the way other sports handle this is actually consistent. Except for the use of chess player when chess is the CONCISE unambiguous disambiguator, which can be fixed with this proposal. --В²C ☎ 18:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
    The examples given earlier were Phil Taylor (darts player), Mark Williams (snooker player), Henry Slade (rugby player), John Hennigan (poker player), and Martin Knight (squash player). I don't find the WP:CONCISE argument to be convincing in relation to disambiguation. Certainly titles and disambiguations should not be needlessly long, but I don't see it stated in any guideline that disambiguation must be as short as possible. This notion doesn't appear in WP:CONCISE or WP:DAB, so it seems to be only an inference that some are drawing. The WP:NCDAB guide lists three ways to do parenthetical disambiguation. The first is generic class, and the generic class for Frank Marshall is chess player, not chess. The second option given is subject or context, but chess player is just as much a context as chess is. I would submit that generally generic class provides better disambiguation than context, but fortunately there's no need here to choose. Chess player is both the class and the context. Note also that footballer, ice skater, etc. are generic classes, and I submit that alone makes them superior disambigutations and consistent with chess player. Quale (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
    In my opinion titles disambiguated wth “darts player” et al are in violation of WP:CRITERIA because they are unnecessarily long; the “player” part in those examples, just like with “chess player”, is superfluous. “Player” would nothing to the examples I provided, and it adds nothing in these either. —В²C ☎ 07:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah, and Lee Rogers (podiatrist) is longer than Lee Rogers (podiatry) and Susan Peters (politician) is longer than Susan Peters (politics). But the shorter disambiguations are worse, and they're worse for the same reason that chess is a worse disambiguation than chess player. Clearly CONCISE is not the ultimate rule unless you demand those disambiguations must use podiatry and politics instead of podiatrist and politician. Quale (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Oh please, the difference between podiatrist and podiatry is insignificant in terms of which is CONCISE. Given a (near) wash with respect to CONCISE, of course the disambiguator that means a person is preferable to the one that means the general area of their notable occupation. But adding a whole other word to convey a topic which is already obviously person is a person (e.g. by adding "player" to "American football", or to "chess") is significant and quite different from the rist/ry and tician/tics examples. That said, there would be nothing wrong with using podiatry and politics in those cases, but using the slightly longer person variants in those cases is not nearly as blatantly violating CONCISE as unnecessarily adding "player" is. --В²C ☎ 18:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tail-piece memo

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  • Well, one point I would have added to the comments is that some of those listed were not really notable as players, but in other aspects of chess. R.C. Griffiths was more notable as co-originator of the MCO (Modern Chess Openings) series, and as editor of the British Chess Magazine. Several others listed were more notable for other activities, although it is often difficult to prove this. Some on the list are notable indeed, but more for things other than chess. Peter Lee, for example, achieved more in bridge than in chess, though it requires familiarity with these activities to judge. My point, though, is that he is almost certainly more significant in his professional role than in either game. So the argument that "chess player" is more exact fails for those people who were not ever professional players. There are cases where a person's main activity was chess, but they are not best known as players. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
I do not want to resuscitate this long-dead conversation, but for the record, R.C. Griffith is not spelled with an "s", and in addition, he won the British championship in 1912, so one should not say he was "not really notable" as a player. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Prisoner of War story

edit
Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I read that during World War II, British prisoner of war David Pritchard used his chess prowess to convince his German captors that he was a spy, resulting in his transfer to a more favorable camp. Is there a reliable source that would warrant the inclusion of this interesting story? 76.14.125.159 (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Pritchard_(chess_player)&oldid=1209875979"