Talk:Magnus Carlsen

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Magnus Carlsen article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 12 months

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Magnus Carlsen has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 4, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
January 18, 2018	Peer review	Reviewed

News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 3, 2010, January 2, 2013, and November 22, 2013.

Current status: Good article

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Chess Top‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Norway

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Vital article

2023 Details

I perhaps believe that every elite tournament of Meltwater Champions Chess Tour should be updated side by side while the tournament is going on, this would provide users to find info on the tournament not only on Chess.com , Chess 24 but also on Wikipedia SHU KURENAI 23 (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting a discussion of this question here on the talk page.

In general, we should adhere to WP:NOTNEWS, which advises us that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" and that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style." In editing Magnus Carlsen, we would normally mention his participation in Tata Steel 2023, both because he finished second in a strong and prestigious tournament, and because he is world champion. But we would wait until the tournament was over, and then write only a summary, stating that he finished second, but he lost two games. And that would be all. We should not list the names of the people he beat, nor should we talk about the issue of Ding's rating going under 2800.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the readership of Magnus Carlsen consists mainly of people who are looking up his name because they don't know who he is. It is unrealistic to try to compete with chess.com and chess24 for the attention of people following the latest news. Unlike those websites, we do not have paid journalists who can interview the players, and who can competently analyze their games, and who can do research on the subjects about which they are writing.

By the way, in editing Richard Rapport, I am not sure we should even mention his participation in Tata Steel 2023, because he only finished in the middle of the field, not even getting a plus score. But I could be wrong about this, perhaps experienced editors of chess articles might disagree with me.

Getting back to Magnus Carlsen: because we do not have our own journalists, we are getting our facts from other places, such as chess.com or chess24. We are required to cite those sources. Not only is it necessary for those sources to get credit, but also, it is necessary for readers to be able to find and read the articles that we have read. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruce leverett Thank you for clearing my concern about the details as mentioned above , I will try to keep details about other players updated in the same way . SHU KURENAI 23 (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image dispute - 2021 WCC image is better

FIrst, the WCC is more significant than the Tata Steel tournament, and also the image shows him more clearly. Jishiboka1 (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this new photo is significantly worse. There's no need to only use the latest photo available, and particularly not if it's a bad one. Even using this one from 2016 seems quite okay. 157.157.164.20 (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vague attribution

In an interview after the match, Carlsen said he is suffering from a lack of motivation to play classical chess, because of the dominance of opening preparation. Long forced lines made it very difficult to get a real game between the two players, and one needed to find new ideas in even formerly low-theory lines such as the London system.

So did Magnus actually say all that in the second sentence, or did an overenthusiastic editor provide an example they considered relevant? That should be clarified IMHO. – AndyFielding (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Notes: interactive games' tab should be merged with the main 'Notes' tab

In my opinion, the information from the 'Notes: interactive games' tab should be merged with the information from the main 'Notes' tab and then the 'Notes: interactive games' tab should be deleted as in my opinion it is pointless having 2 notes tabs. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All-time highest-rated blitz and rapid player = no mention

Carlsen's peak in both blitz and rapid chess (according to FIDE) is the highest in history but I couldn't find a single mention of it. Isn't that worth of a mention..? Vehvilæinen (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vehvilæinen: feel free to go ahead and add a mention to the article. LittlePuppers (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's a record does not imply that it needs to be mentioned in the article. There is no hard-and-fast criterion for what to put into the article and what not to, but one useful criterion is notability. If you can find one or more articles in the chess press (print or online) that mention his record-high blitz and/or rapid ratings, you can mention them in the article, and cite the article(s). On the other hand, if you can't find such an article, chances are the rest of the world just does not care about these high ratings, and mentioning them in the article would be just nerdy. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. It seems that the internet had very little interest in it. However, can't see it as nerdy... Vehvilæinen (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GOAT again

Should this edit by SpyroeBM be reverted?

This matter has been discussed before here:

Talk:Magnus Carlsen/Archive 2#GOAT

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 37#GOAT

Similar statements have been removed from the articles about Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Fischer&diff=1150860407&oldid=1150835367

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garry_Kasparov&diff=1139625710&oldid=1139622414

The edits above were made by MaxBrowne2 and Bruce leverett. Khiikiat (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have anything to add to the discussion in Talk:Magnus Carlsen/Archive 2#GOAT. By way of clarification, when that discussion took place, there were still "GOAT" statements in the lead paragraphs of Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov, but those have since been removed.

In a nutshell (in case the reader does not want to click through to that discussion), there was consensus that GOAT statements, no matter how carefully supported by citations to references, are generally not helpful things to have in biographies of chess world champions. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]