Talk:List of draughts players

I'm more of a checkers than a chess kind of guy so I'm trying to increase coverage. I tried to limit to names that seemed important to the game or had a page on both the Estonian and Dutch ones.--T. Anthony 06:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some important names in English draughts. --Vagodin ^Talk 05:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I keep meaning to actually write articles for some of these people. I did Moisiyev at the start, but I think that's all so far from me.(Also I keep wanting to just call it Checkers, but for an international audience checkers means something a bit different it seems)--T. Anthony 16:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That should be enough for now

I'm taking this off my watch list. Any notable names left to fill can be handled by those interested. I might check it though from time to time.--T. Anthony 04:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain why "asshole" is on the list of human plavers?

Because the entry for James Wyllie, an actual draughts/checkers champ with an article I created, was replaced with the word "a****le." I see that Wylie became but a memory so was not returned after removing the obscenity.--T. Anthony 04:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above user (myself) used at the time IP 71.64.201.157. Its disturbing, yet very true, that little changes like this distort information on Wikipedia without anyone noticing. Its good you took the time to restore your contribution.--189.121.183.72 (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you learned your lesson it's all good. Anyway on things of lesser Wikipedian interest vandalism can indeed stay a long time. There was a pretty weird vandalism on the Kid Ory article for nearly a week.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason James Bending had been removed. Vandalism most likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.19.62 (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.... right. Pyrop e 00:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link for Alfred Jordan

Dear Wikipedia Contributors, the link for Alfred Jordan leads to an article about an homonym football player. Would you please fix that? I guess it requires a disambiguation page. I know very little about the the rules, style and edition skills to do this, so, that is the reason I do no do it by myself. Thanks in advance. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it, thanks for the attention.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Draughts players one addition72.200.107.178 (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This list should include Millard Hopper, from whom Tom Wiswell won the title of go-as-you-please world champion in two very close contests of many games. Nearly all of the games were draws. These games are studied by checkers enthusiasts in a book titled Checker Kings in Action. Mr. Hopper wrote several books about the game of checkers and promoted the game in many public demonstrations. After losing the world title to Mr. Wiswell, he turned his attention to promotion of backgammon, about which he wrote a book.

I'm a year late, but if anyone can source this addition, go for it! I think there are too many red-links added though. We should probably focus more on making articles on the red-links there than adding more.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red-links and lists

Red-links of personal names are, or at least were, fairly common on Wikipedia lists. An advantage lists have over categories is red-links and the ability for expansion. See List of chess grandmasters, List of curlers, etc. I've reduced the number of red-links to those sourced here or in other Wikipedias, but I do not believe in restricting further unless I absolutely am forced to do so by an authority. Even then I'd prefer just making these into articles myself than having them removed as most of them are world champions or national champions in their variant I believe.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC) --T. Anthony (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I myself have restricted a bit further, but almost all the red-links remaining are world-champions and all are sourced as notable.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking it up I see two years ago or so Wikipedia:Red link was changed to be more restrictive on this issue than it used to be or was when I was active on this list. However even it states "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name." So it's not required to remove existing red-links if they can plausibly sustain an article.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDNOT is quite clear: "don't red link to personal names". The fact that other lists contain red links to personal names simply means that those articles need to be corrected. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this very situation is addressed at WP:REDLINK: "Lists tend to accrue red links...such entries should be removed". Joefromrandb (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you are incorrect. What it says is "Lists of "notable people" in an article, such as the "Notable alumni" section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links, or non-links, listing people of unverifiable notability." I have given notability with sourcing. The page states "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name." I've reduced it to those that can clearly be that. "Otherstuff" is not a justification to place your interpretation of a policy above anyone who has worked on this article and it has a history of being invoked as an excuse to just delete most any list. (It might be more of a guiding essay than anything) Further my argument is not merely an "otherstuff" argument, it's based in part on the advantage of lists. See Wikipedia:Lists: "Advantages of lists 8. Can include items that are not linked (see e.g. List of compositions by Franz Schubert); or items for which there are yet no articles (red links). [my emphasis]" I admit impatience with you, but I feel your interpretation of Wikipedia:Red link is actually contrary to advantage of lists over categories. Conflict is unfortunate, but this is something of a conflicting view. So if you wish to use your conflicting interpretation on this article you will need to either gain a consensus of the editors of this list to support you or find an authority to make a judgment siding with you. Otherwise I will assure the current, much reduced in number, red-links stay in per Wikipedia:Lists et alia. (This might seem hostile, but I've tried to make it as mild as I can. Also I think there were too many red-links so it is good you inspired me to reduce it to a mere dozen or so.)--T. Anthony (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)--T. Anthony (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WT:Red link. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, when you've openly declared your intention to edit-war against guidelines "even if it means conflict", it's better to strike your text than attempt to quietly remove it. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's against your interpretation of guidelines, interpretations that I argue are erroneous. And I've tried to put back the phrase on conflict if you feel removing it was dishonest. There is something of an editing conflict here and differing interpretations of views. If your view is correct per current policy I will submit, while personally thinking policy is wrong. (Wikipedia isn't a totalitarian state, I don't have to assent internally as long as I obey the rules. If this is a rule I will obey, but not like it)--T. Anthony (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That being said there is an issue on living people so I've removed those red-links as well. I was maybe being too uncompromising.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While it's still early, there doesn't appear to be much traction at WP:REDLINK for your interpretation of these guidelines. While I'm not thrilled by the idea, a possible solution would be to remove the remaining links by piping them to the appropriate articles (i.e. World Draughts Federation). Joefromrandb (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to being a bit surprised the conversation has largely went on your side there. Although that might be changing already. Still I think I let this bother me more than it maybe should. I still think this idea of removing all red-linked people from all lists doesn't make much sense, at the very least because of things like List of ministers of the environment or List of Prime Ministers of Korea, but obviously Wikipedia handles these things as it sees fit and I am pleased that the names are still there just not as red-links.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I gave up to easily. There was you and one other person on one side, then me and one person on the other side. Yet I let someone on your side of the argument just do things before anything was resolved. So I've returned the red-links of deceased players for now.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tinsley

Somehow during the commotion the reference about Tinsley and the statement that he was the greatest player ever got removed. Normally, calling someone the "greatest ever" at something is speculative and inappropriate, but Tinsley is an anomaly. No one ever came even remotely close to Tinsley and I can't picture any serious follower of checkers/draughts arguing otherwise. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I worried it maybe sounded like "peacocking", but I put back as you have a point.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can red-links be in the talk page?

Although they apparently can, I'll remove that and just do a link to the list I made, User:T. Anthony/Checkers. I might also add some non-red links or content to the article. --T. Anthony (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution?

It seems there's plenty of red-linked draughts players in the articles on Category:Draughts competitions and maybe some debate in Wikipedia:Red link. So can we finally loosen up here, and return some names that were on it when I made this article or are those sufficiently different we have to remain persnickety about this list?--T. Anthony (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would hesitate to return red-linked names to this list, especially since this list has become rather stable. Not every name need be linked; notable players are listed here without linking, while others link to foreign-language Wikipedias. There has been debate at WP:Red link for some time, but that doesn't equal consensus to change long-standing policy, especially as WP:BLP is directly germane to WP:REDNOT. I'll also note that the removal of the red links led you, T. Anthony, to create several articles for players that had been red-linked for years. I have no objection to adding names to the list if you think they belong, but red-linking them is another story. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well because it got me to care and create a Checkers red-link list. If those had been here maybe User:Bars 23, who's been more active on the matter of late, would have made them anyway. Or made the ones he, or she, made anyway.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of draughts players. 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:

Added archive https://archive.is/20120723134848/http://www.checkerworld.com/oldplayers1.html to http://www.checkerworld.com/oldplayers1.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130824145601/http://www.kndb.nl/cms/ to http://www.kndb.nl/cms/

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) 01:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]