Jump to content

Talk:Daniel Naroditsky

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Naroditsky. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chess prodigy

[edit]

Is the term chess prodigy still appropriate for someone aged 24? --Johpick (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "chess prodigy" is accurate for a 24-year-old man, so I'll remove it. If someone finds a source of Naroditsky's greatness at a young age (below 18), then they can add "He became a chess prodigy when he was <insert age>". Puredication (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at more resources, it looks like Naroditsky was a great chess player from a young age (15 years and younger). I'll re-add "chess prodigy" to the article within the next few days (if nobody else does). Puredication (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I see that in Magnus Carlsen, we flat out say "chess prodigy", though he is now about 30. I think I have seen other articles where we say someone "was" a chess prodigy, but apparently we aren't doing that for Carlsen. I also looked at Bobby Fischer: we don't even come right out and use the word "prodigy". What do you know. I won't complain, whichever way you do it. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should say they "are chess prodigies" (unless they are young, of course), but saying something like "Fischer became a chess prodigy by the age of <insert age>" would work. I'll look at Carlsen and Fischers' pages to see whether they should be revised. Thanks! Puredication (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that non-chess media (the sort of people who don't know the difference between a "game" and a "match" and think "stalemate" and "draw" are synonyms) often use the term "prodigy" rather frivolously. It's appropriate enough for Fischer, Carlsen, Reshevsky, Kasparov, Karjakin and Judit Polgar, all of whom had significant chess achievements before the age of 16. Naroditsky I'm not so sure about. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, but Naroditsky should at least be considered. He was tying with Grandmasters in various tournaments before becoming 16 years old and published his first chess book by the age of 14. Maybe instead of saying he was a "chess prodigy", we just say he "has performed well against Grandmasters from a young age". Does that sound better? Puredication (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Prophet

[edit]

Wikipedia has no place for promotion of would-be celebrities. Evidently "MoistCr1tikal" thinks he can boost his numbers by putting his name in the article about Daniel Naroditsky, and who knows, perhaps Mr. Naroditsky is assisting him with this, but it's not good for them, and it's not good for Wikipedia.

There are various written guidelines available for what is and is not suitable to be included in Wikipedia articles. If you are interested, start with this link: WP:NOT (or specifically WP:NOTPROMOTION). If you want to discuss this in more detail, feel free to do so on this talk page. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I highly doubt that User:DaPlayingEagle is MoistCr1tikal himself. It's much more probable that they're an overzealous fan that's trying to add Mr. Naroditsky's nickname to his Wikipedia page. That said, I don't think "The Prophet" at this point fits WP:NICKNAME since it's just an inside joke in the chess community and there aren't any serious independent sources for it (chess.com's promotional material shouldn't count). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    An inside joke within a community is precisely what a nickname is, so if it's an established nickname it shouldn't matter who coined it. Further more chess.com promotional material should very much play a role in the decision, that sort of material is often what establishes a nickname. But of course it should be used by fans outside of promotional material too.
    Considering that it's still used today in 2024 my opinion is that it has been proven to be an established nickname. Bonaventurepedia (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2020

[edit]

you can add in his social media twitter https://twitter.com/gmnaroditsky , twitch https://www.twitch.tv/GMNaroditsky, and youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHP9CdeguNUI-_nBv_UXBhw Huinker (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. We generally don't want to list too many external links, or else it might be promotional. See WP:ELNO. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2021

[edit]

Change "chess grandmaster" as a two word link, to "chess"(link to the main chess article", "grandmaster"(keep the current link to grandmaster article) CaceresAlex (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All set, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021

[edit]

Add citation to the sentence about his lichess rankings: https://lichess.org/blog/WpmA1SwAACwAxGsW/magnus-carlsen-wins-third-consecutive-lichess-titled-arena

Reasoning: The current citation is only a link to Naroditsky's Lichess account. On the account itself, there is nothing actually indicating that it's Naroditsky's account. The lichess article links to the account under Naroditsky's name, which confirms that it's him. 2600:6C56:7C00:78:1F3:1455:B5C5:859C (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source, you're right that just a link to his account doesn't actually confirm it's him. I took out the bit about the rankings though, as these change every day whenever he decides to log on, so the link to his account is not really a great source for the statement. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel "Danya" Naroditsky

[edit]

I found myself the other day wondering why calling Naroditsky "Danya" is so common. I found that this is a somewhat common question on chess forums. I would normally just go ahead and boldly make the change, but I would not be surprised if there was opposition to it from page watchers, so I'm running this by you all first.

Per MOS:LEADALT which says, "If a person is commonly known by a nickname (other than a hypocorism), it is presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for Bunny Berigan, which has Roland Bernard "Bunny" Berigan.", I am suggesting the first sentence of the lead be changed to:

Daniel "Danya" Naroditsky (born November 9, 1995 in San Mateo, California) is an American chess grandmaster.

He's now Lead Commentator at chess.com, where he is commonly referred to as "Danya" by writers and editors there:

https://www.chess.com/news/view/daniel-naroditsky-lead-commentator
https://www.chess.com/players/daniel-naroditsky

uschess.org

https://new.uschess.org/news/chess-twitch-home-away-home

Hikaru Nakamura referring to him as 'Danya' on his official YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVwtQH4XTXU

Naroditsky referring to himself as "Danya" on his official YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rJbXaNwJxE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opdegV4nwTM

All of the above are from chess forums or channels. Usage outside of the chess universe are rare, but here's one from when he was 10 years old:

https://www.jweekly.com/2006/04/07/10-year-old-chess-champ-is-king-of-the-board/

SaltySaltyTears (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's borderline, but "Danya" is not a common English hypocorism, and there are sources that refer to him by the nickname going back over a decade (e.g. International Chess Academy article from 2005, Chess Life profile from 2013). It definitely has better sources than "The Prophet." Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a hypocorism. This would be like using "Mischa" in Mikhail Tal. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MOS:HYPOCORISM gives an exception for non-English hypocorisms. Assume that most non-English hypocorisms (e.g. Lupita for Guadalupe, Mischa for Mikhail, Sascha for Alexander or Zuzka for Zuzana) are not familiar as hypocorisms to readers of the English Wikipedia, even if well-known in their native culture. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At MOS:HYPOCORISM and the talk pages, it looks like the concensus was that uncommon ones are acceptable If a person is known by a nickname used in lieu of or in addition to a given name, and it is not a common hypocorism[j] of one of their names, or a professional alias, it is usually presented between double quotation marks following the last given name or initial. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the formatting would be Daniel "Danya" Naroditsky (with the quotation marks outside the boldface) per the MOS. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed SaltySaltyTears (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks common enough. Using Google, I have seen it used in reference to Daniil Dubov and Daniil Samsonov.
The "Lead Commentator" announcement uses "The Prophet" several times. This is not what I would call a reliable source. Generally, as an encyclopedia, I think we should be a "lagging indicator" of nicknames (see WP:SUSTAINED). Bruce leverett (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Danya' is certainly not a "common" hypocorism of "Daniel" in English speaking countries, and this is the English Wikipedia of course. "Danny" on the other hand, would qualify. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2022

[edit]

Change his number of YouTube subscribers from 100K to 232K. Awprc (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Le Marteau (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yo my dude does not have 258,000 subscribers. Nobody does on Twitch. This should be clarified to YouTube or something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.234.29 (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does say it's for YouTube. He is active on YouTube and Twitch, where he has over 258,000 subscribers and 227,000 followers, respectively. "Respectively" means he has 258,000 subscribers on YouTube and 227,000 followers on Twitch. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

[edit]

@GreenFrogsGoRibbit: WP:IGNORE says you can occasionally violate rules. It does not say "Gratuitously violate common sense and Wikipedia policy whenever possible."

It is over the top to use Wikilinks on "Jewish", let alone on "immigrant", in this article. What is your agenda? Do you really think that readers will need these links to better understand the article?

MOS:OVERLINK explicitly discourages us from linking "Everyday words understood by most readers in context (e.g., education, violence, aircraft, river) ... The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of: ... nationalities, ethnicities or descent (e.g., British, Chinese, Turkish, African-American, Nigerian) religions (e.g., Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism)

Is there some overriding principle that would lead us to ignore this guidance here? Bruce leverett (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruce leverett: My invocation of WP:Ignore was valid. Common sense is on my side and I don't violate Wikipedia rules nonstop, what an unsubstantiated charge. It is not over the top to link "Jewish" for clarity purposes, most prominent Jewish pages have the exact same links. You'd charge all of them as over the top and overlinking? Under your erroneous standards, we'd have to change all these pages, all of them, and for what? Did you establish some widespread consensus for such a drastic change? My agenda is to defend Wikipedia's precedent and system of editing as we know it from you, a person who would have us edit countless pages such as Julie Rikelman and Ben Shapiro due to erroneous invocations of overlinking. These pages are fine as was my edit making this page more like those. My agenda is also to defend identity as we know it, and notice that your list does not include Jewish so your point fails. By securing this edit, I destroy your agenda to fundamentally break Wikipedia as we know it. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed excessive linking in the Julie Rikelman article, including the link to "Jewish". Per MOS:OVERLINK The purpose of linking is to clarify, not emphasize. Do not link solely to draw attention to certain words or ideas, or as a mark of respect. Everyone knows what "Jewish" means, and a link to "Jewish" is not indicated in her article. Regarding Ben Shapiro some clarification and linking is probably warranted, because we're not linking "Jewish" but instead "Conservative Jewish" and "Russian-Jewish" and "Lithuanian-Jewish" and "Orthodox Judiasm". There is also some general overlinking in the Shapiro article which I would otherwise address, but I'm not touching that article with a pole of any length to deal with anything but blatant vandalism. Thank you for not edit warring about the issue, though, and for taking it to talk. Reasonable minds can disagree, which is why we work off consensus. Le Marteau (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date

[edit]

@Tkbrett: The FIDE ratings website gives his birth year as 1995.

This website gives the full date. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce leverett, great, that will meet the requirements of WP:BLPPRIVACY. Feel free to add it. Tkbrett (✉) 17:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2023 - Naroditsky and Chess Replay

[edit]

After the article states "In June 2022, he became the chess columnist for The New York Times," I suggest adding the following update:

"In this role, he was responsible for creating entries in the newspaper's Chess Replay series, a collection of online chess puzzles based on different games from history. After an initial week of daily posts, Naroditsky published puzzles on a weekly basis until the series' discontinuation on September 11, 2022. No official statement was made regarding its discontinuation."

I'm not sure how exactly to cite it, but this page lists all of the Chess Replays in chronological order. The most recent puzzle's description also says "This is puzzle 19 of 19."

Conmcdon721 (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source discussing his column and its apparent discontinuation? What you've presented seems more like original research. Tkbrett (✉) 15:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh, kind of? Not really, I guess. The most concrete statement I could find was in the second to last Chess Replay puzzle. On that page, linked here, it says "There is one new puzzle left in this limited series, published each week on Thursdays." I couldn't find any mention of it in an article or press release from the New York Times, though, nor could I find any mention of it from Naroditsky. It's like it just disappeared, so maybe it really hasn't been discontinued.

What are your thoughts on this? Is it be better to say something like "the last puzzle was uploaded on September 11, 2022"? Or just leave the article as is until a reliable, published source can be found? Conmcdon721 (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When in doubt, it's better to have a lack of information than inaccurate or badly sourced information. In this case, what you're presenting would probably be original research, as mentioned by Tkbrett above. Until a reliable source becomes available, I'd recommend not publishing any further information on this. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Error in page

[edit]

Listening to the Fabiano Caruana podcast with Danya, he actually learned chess from his brother, not his father. 208.98.222.24 (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Naroditsky&oldid=1245881142"