Talk:Ruy López de Segura

Petrov's defence

Is there a source for the petrov's defense line being named for Ruy Lopez? the lichess analysis board didn't see anything special. 96.37.80.50 (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't encounter such a thing in reading a bunch of materials. Nothing in the ECO either. Anyway it's not in the article anymore, and would need sourcing to be put back in. Mack Robot (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Major Expansion Begun!

Hello everyone! I just started expanding this article. If you have anything to contribute, please do! Also please put any sources here if they're not included already... I need them!Mack Robot (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

...finished, mostly. Small editing is sure to follow. But the big stuff is done, unless someone points out an error/omission.Mack Robot (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Roman Catholic

De Segura was Roman Catholic, and it would seem appropriate to describe him as such, just as consensus indicates we do across Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

You realize you've violated 3RR right? and you do not have a local consensus to make this change. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

MaxBrowne2, actually I did not. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I count 3 reverts in 24 hours. In any case it seems you have no interest in the subject of the article (nobody calls him "de Segura"), you simply came here to troll me following the thread at WP:NPOVN, complete with irritating edit summary. What a waste of everyone's time. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

3RR applies to more than 3 edits in 24 hours. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC

Describe López as Roman Catholic? Elizium23 (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• No: in the context of 16th century Spain the simpler term "Catholic" in unambiguous. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes conforms to consensus, reliable secondary sources, and categories applied in article. Elizium23 (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Why does anyone think it makes a difference in this context? DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• No the term is actually specific to the English language, and doesn't even exist in Spanish. Use of the term in the context of 16th century Spain is unnecessary. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• No It is needless. Sea Ane (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - Even if the subject lived in the 16th century, the reader lives in the present and Wikipedia text should be as unambiguous as possible. PraiseVivec (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Question: How do secondary, RSs describe him? Regards (please ping). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: The most common form online seems to be "Spanish priest", which is also the description used in the OED. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: Perhaps we could just call him catholic in the body than rather than the lead sentence? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• No: in the context of 16th century Spain the simpler term "Catholic" in unambiguous and it is the WP:COMMONNAME to the modern reader. Unnecessary complication to add 'Roman', what possible ambiguity is there ? Several other churches refer to themselves with 'Catholic' in the long-form title, but the fuller form is hardly ever used even by those within those churches. Pincrete (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• No, In the context of 16th century Spain, the simpler term "Catholic" in unambiguous as mentioned by some editors above. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• No, unambiguous term, as in the context of 16th century Spain. Idealigic (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

"Openings named for Ruy Lopez"

The source is a self-published software developer, using "internet names" for chess openings. It is not reliable. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)