Talk:Centre Pawn Opening

On 22 July 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved. The result of the discussion was 'moved' to Centre Pawn Opening.

Merge with Ruy Lopez?[edit]

I am against merging Lopez Opening with Ruy Lopez Opening. The former is not part of the latter. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 20:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. This has a similar opening name, little else in common. SunCreator (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the template. They are related in name only. Quale (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 03:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced name[edit]

I have found no reliable sources to indicate that 1.e4 e5 2.c3 has ever been known as the "Lopez Opening". This name was bestowed on it by a sock-puppeteer in 2005. Subsequently it contaminated the internet, software authors etc. Any internet-based source using the name after 2005 can be dismissed as probable WP:CITOGENESIS. Hooper & Whyld (1994) call the opening the Centre Pawn Opening while noting that it was played by MacLeod, and give "Lopez Openng" as an alternative name for the Spanish/Ruy Lopez. The much less reliable Schiller (1998) gives "MacLeod Attack" and doesn't mention Lopez. The name "MacLeod Attack" appears to be Schiller's own invention and is not traditional; it's also a rather silly name since there's nothing attacking about the move 2.c3. Before then it was just called the "Queen's Bishop's Pawn Opening" (Staunton etc). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should get the article deleted rather than worrying about what to call it. It's an irregular open game that isn't significant enough to warrant an article. I'd say it fails WP:N. A mention in Schiller does not have any weight toward WP:GNG and the mention in Hooper & Whyld is trivial. Quale (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I opposed the PROD because there are several references to this opening in older texts, as summarised by Staunton (see page 238), and notability is not temporary. I might vote to delete if it goes to Afd and I am convinced by the arguments, but my opinion is that this ancient opening has enough notability to justify an article. It just needs better sourcing, and a name that those sources actually use. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 July 2022[edit]

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: moved to Centre Pawn Opening. Two editors offered the same title with no opposition. If a better title is agreed upon later, another discussion won't hurt, but it is agreed that the original title is unsuitable. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 12:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lopez Opening → ? – No reliable source to indicate this opening was ever known as the "Lopez Opening" until a wikipedia editor used that name in 2006. "Lopez Opening" is a confusing name which most chess players would assume refers to the Ruy Lopez. Staunton (1848) uses "Queen's Bishop's Pawn's Opening". "Centre Pawn Opening" (used by Hooper & Whyle, 1994) is another possibility, but "MacLeod Attack" is an invention of Schiller (1998) and is not recommended. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Centre Pawn Opening. If not for another currently ongoing AfD, this would be the longest-lasting "hoax" in Wikipedia history. O.N.R. ^(talk) 08:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.