 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
I've just added some content which included six secondary sources, so perhaps it is almost ready to have the "relies on primary sources" tag removed. Some of the existing references need to be tidied up and perhaps belong in "External Links" or "See Also". I could do that.
In terms of notability, it is tempting to suggest a merge of this based on company ownership with Play Magnus and Chessable, but I think that will just create a jumble. I think one could argue that the recently-organized tournaments and associated coverage is enough to merit notability.
Thoughts? Dhalamh ( talk) 18:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- @ Dhalamh: As far as I can see, all those links are about the tournaments, not about chess24.com itself, e.g. this link has only a single passing reference: [1] "there is the fascinating prospect of a dream final in chess24’s Banter Blitz Cup..." . I guess sponsoring some high-profile tournaments give some small measure of notability, but (in my opinion) not much. I am not saying the article fails notability, but I think the primary sources and questionable notability tags should stay until there are third-party articles about chess24.com . Adpete ( talk) 01:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- 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 — Amakuru ( talk) 17:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Chess24.com → Chess24 – There doesn't seem to be any good reason to add the ".com" at the end of the title. Sources seem to just refer to it as "Chess24": [2] [3] [4] [5]. See also the discussion this move request spawned from: Talk:Lichess#Requested_move_27_March_2022. Endwise ( talk) 06:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. W. P. Uzer ( talk) 09:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support: we refer to it in the article as just "chess24", not "chess24.com", and per Endwise's sources, it is regularly known by this name (and particularly of note is that The Guardian refers to " chess.com" but just "chess24"). — Bilorv ( talk) 13:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support With the exception of chess.com, I don't think it is necessary to put the ".com" in the title of any chess servers.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 15:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support: Even Chess24 refers to themselves as such: [6], it's more accurate to give them an entry index that reflects their brand. -- Unihedro ( talk) 22:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Site name, not site URL, should generally be the title of the article. Jhy.rjwk ( talk) 04:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
I've just added some content which included six secondary sources, so perhaps it is almost ready to have the "relies on primary sources" tag removed. Some of the existing references need to be tidied up and perhaps belong in "External Links" or "See Also". I could do that.
In terms of notability, it is tempting to suggest a merge of this based on company ownership with Play Magnus and Chessable, but I think that will just create a jumble. I think one could argue that the recently-organized tournaments and associated coverage is enough to merit notability.
Thoughts? Dhalamh ( talk) 18:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- @ Dhalamh: As far as I can see, all those links are about the tournaments, not about chess24.com itself, e.g. this link has only a single passing reference: [1] "there is the fascinating prospect of a dream final in chess24’s Banter Blitz Cup..." . I guess sponsoring some high-profile tournaments give some small measure of notability, but (in my opinion) not much. I am not saying the article fails notability, but I think the primary sources and questionable notability tags should stay until there are third-party articles about chess24.com . Adpete ( talk) 01:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- 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 — Amakuru ( talk) 17:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Chess24.com → Chess24 – There doesn't seem to be any good reason to add the ".com" at the end of the title. Sources seem to just refer to it as "Chess24": [2] [3] [4] [5]. See also the discussion this move request spawned from: Talk:Lichess#Requested_move_27_March_2022. Endwise ( talk) 06:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. W. P. Uzer ( talk) 09:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support: we refer to it in the article as just "chess24", not "chess24.com", and per Endwise's sources, it is regularly known by this name (and particularly of note is that The Guardian refers to " chess.com" but just "chess24"). — Bilorv ( talk) 13:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support With the exception of chess.com, I don't think it is necessary to put the ".com" in the title of any chess servers.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 15:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support: Even Chess24 refers to themselves as such: [6], it's more accurate to give them an entry index that reflects their brand. -- Unihedro ( talk) 22:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Site name, not site URL, should generally be the title of the article. Jhy.rjwk ( talk) 04:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)