Talk:Marshall Attack

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 10 October 2022 by reviewer Robert McClenon (talk · contribs).

Chess Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 25 April 2026, it was proposed that this article be moved from Ruy Lopez, Marshall Attack to Marshall Attack. The result of the discussion was moved.

Requested move 25 April 2026

Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ruy Lopez, Marshall Attack → Marshall Attack – It seems a consensus is emerging at Talk:Berlin Defence against a move. For consistency, because the unqualified name of this article would be unambiguous, I think this should be moved. I'm also curious how other editors would compare this hypothetical move with one of Ruy Lopez, Zaitsev Variation, because unlike Ruy Lopez, Exchange Variation, where a move is impossible due to ambiguity, I'm unaware of any other notable variations named after Zaitsev, but I still don't think a move should occur for the Zaitsev. Dayshade (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, seems like there was an undiscussed move that occurred in 2024, so WP:RETAIN would not apply. Dayshade (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Support: The Marshall Attack is a very famous line with great history, and just like the Berlin Defence it does not need the qualifier. If you mention the Marshall Attack (in a chess context) there is no doubt about what you're referring to.

As for the Zaitsev Variation the only thing that comes close to being ambiguous would be the Zaitsev of the Benko Gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.Nc3), but that's usually referred to as the Zaitsev System. The Ruy Lopez Zaitsev would be WP:PTOPIC anyways so it's not a concern. I'm a bit skeptical to moving the Zaitsev Variation. Having an opening titled [Name] Variation not be qualified is a bit strange, and usually when written such openings get qualified or mentioned alongside their parent opening because just writing/saying [Name] Variation kind of makes the question "variation of what?" jump out at you. There is also an argument for keeping the qualifier for consistency among openings called [Name] Variation. Anyways, I won't go into that anymore as this RM isn't about that. I will just note that I'm not entirely opposed to just Zaitsev Variation if we were to also give other titles the same treatment. That would make WP:CONSISTENCY be an argument for the move rather than against it. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 04:00, 26 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Support. The Marshall Attack, like the Berlin Defence, is a well-established variation of the Ruy Lopez and does not require any additional qualifier. While the original intention of introducing a kind of hierarchical structure for chess opening articles is commendable, I do not think that goal can be achieved through a naming convention alone. I have an idea for accomplishing it in a much better way and will present a proposed solution very soon.

Erukx (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2026 (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.