User:Double sharp/Fairy piece notability

– Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huygens (chess piece): redirect to Fairy chess pieces#Notable examples (27 April 2017)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 22 § Huygens (chess piece): delete (30 October 2022)

Notability edit

This article has no justification for stand-alone article status. It is about a piece in a variant added to Chessvariants.org on February 28, 2017, and that is its sole claim for WP:Reliable sources. User blogs at Chess.com and elsewhere don't qualify. Even references to Chessvariants.com have been used exceedingly sparingly in WP chess-related articles, almost always they appear in External link sections only. A new variant added to Chessvariants.org has never been used as a WP:RS for any WP article, ever. (If that's wrong, please show me.) --IHTS (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree: sourcing here is terrible and definitely does not support notability. --JBL (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Some of the material here can possibly be moved to Fairy chess piece. But that article already suffers from its length, and each new piece that gets a special mention burdens the article more. My preference is that this article is OK to remain as a stand-alone article. Among all fairy chess pieces, this piece seems to be mentioned as often or more than many other fairy chess pieces which have stand-alone pags. It is the subject of discussion, or often being used in a game at a public chess forum such as chess.com.—LithiumFlash (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't get it. "seems to be mentioned as often or more than many other fairy chess pieces". Where? Chess.com disucssion forums? That is irrelevant to WP, requirement for stand-alone article is, as told you many times here & elsewhere, published WP:RSs. --IHTS (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. WP has clear standards for sourcing (both for accuracy of individual claims and broader notability of a topic), and this article doesn't meet them. A few minutes with Google suggests that this is because no good sources exist. "Here's a thing I and some friends talk about on a web-forum" is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. --JBL (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I have proposed the article for deletion. --JBL (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I did a google search of the Huygens (as a chess piece) and found significantly more material showing notability than there is for several other chess pieces that have their own article. I'll make a brief summary tomorrow to show what can be found easily (and maybe a proposal to create a uniform guideline so that all chess pieces can be judged in the same way). Thanks for now.—LithiumFlash (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Having just discovered the world of fairy chess pieces, it seems very plausible to me that we have articles written about them that are not supported or supportable by reliable sources due to a lack of notability. If you mention a few pages here, I might (if I find some spare time) investigate whether they should also be listed for deletion. --JBL (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I did a quick survey concerning the huygens chess piece, and some other chess pieces that have their own pages on Wikipedia (as a comparison or reference). Here is a quick summary:

Camel (chess) (article is a stub)

YouTube video "DIY Variant Chess pieces" (2012)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1IGx6KLMPU

Mentioned at chess.com: "If chess had a new piece it would be the camel"

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/if-chess-had-a-new-piece

(Nothing else found)

Centaur (chess) - appears to be a new article (4/5)

listed in Piececlopedia: (N+K)

http://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/centaur.html

(Nothing else found)

Giraffe (chess):

listed in Piececlopedia:

http://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/giraffe.html

listed in Mayhematics: "Giraffe is {1,4} leaper. Zurafa"

https://www.mayhematics.com/v/gm.htm

Pinterest - (2 drawings of a giraffe chess piece):

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/292734044507697828/

(Nothing else found)

Kirin (chess) (article is a stub):

A piece with the same move is listed here, but is called "FD" (does not say Kirin)

http://www.chessvariants.com/d.betza/chessvar/pieces/fd.html

The kirin and more than 200 similar pieces are used in Shogi (a Japanese game similar to chess) and some of its variants. So if the kirin is notable then so are the 200 other pieces.

(Nothing else found)

Phoenix (chess) (article is a stub):

A piece with the same move is listed here, but is called "WA" (does not say Phoenix)

http://www.chessvariants.com/d.betza/chessvar/pieces/wa.html

The Phoenix (hōō) and more than 200 similar pieces are used in Shogi (a Japanese game similar to chess) and some of its variants. (In Japan it is not called the Phoenix). If the Phoenix is notable then so are the 200 other pieces.

(Nothing else found)

Threeleaper (this article is a stub).

(Nothing found)

Tripper (chess) (this article is a stub):

This is a piece that jumps (3,3) and Tripper is a generic name. (found in tables for example).

I only saw it mentioned in a book "Chess variants, Editor: By Wikipedians" so I believe it is a mirror of Wikipedia information (not an independent resource).

(Nothing else found)

Zebra (chess):

listed in the CVP Piececlopedia:

http://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/zebra.html

I found it also proposed as a chess piece, but with a move that doesn't match the Wikipedia article (1/2014):

https://blinchiki.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/new-chess-piece-the-zebra/

(Nothing else found)

Huygens (chess piece):

At the CVP website as a defined piece:

http://www.chessvariants.com/invention/trappist-1

used in games at chess.com, and discussed on matters such as its point value (for example):

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess960-chess-variants/chess-on-an-infinite-plane-huygens-option

Shown in some type of art showing a chess piece in outer space:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/147202588@N02/33215445815

Other art with the huygens (comparing to a camel?):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/147202588@N02/32468003134/in/photostream/

Done with my work on this for today. I'll come back tomorrow and see if I have some idea. Either delete all the pages, keep them all, or something in between. Others should feel free to comment too.—LithiumFlash (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion is either (KEEP ALL), or (Delete the kirin and phoenix, but keep all others). The kirin and phoenix are by far the least most-noatable, and seem only to be transpositions of game pieces used in Chu shogi and other Shogi-type games, of which no single piece may have enough significance to merit its own page for a Wikipedia article.

The subject in question is gamepieces. These articles would probably be classified as articles of low importance (irrespective of notability). Reasonable people can have widely different opinions on the notability of the class of articles as a whole, or on the individual articles. But if we don't get it exactly right, the impact to Wikipedia's purpose will be minimal.

Understanding that Wikipedia's purpose is indeed to "be the largest, most comprehensive, and most widely-available encyclopedia ever written," it is my opinion that the article for the huygens chess piece in particular, and all the chess pieces in the list above remain is individual page articles in Wikipedia.—LithiumFlash (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would try to understand more about the rules of Wikipedia: the guiding principles here are not "let me make up some random argument about why some things are important and others aren't", and if you continue to use this as your main mode of argument then people will continue to ignore or be annoyed by you. --JBL (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the trouble with finding reliable sources for fairy chess is that, while it has a serious problemist tradition, this tradition is only very spottily present on the Internet. If we included that, you would almost certainly find that all the pieces LithiumFlash lists are notable, except for the huygens. The threeleaper and tripper are perhaps at the lower end of notability, but I'm fairly sure they have been used at least sometimes by serious problemists. Unfortunately I don't have access to all this literature at the moment, so I've asked Ihardlythinkso, since he appears to have quite a lot of it; I think anything that comes from his investigation would be of much more value than the bewildering hodge-podge of unreliable sources which LithiumFlash lists above. Double sharp (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I generally agree with most of your assesment with a few points to keep in mind. Most of the chess piece articles in question have had Wikipedia articles for a long time, but the pieces were never notable, and the articles languished as a stub even till today (I even did some work on some of them adding what I could find, which was very little). The huygens chess piece seems to be a more recently "discovered" chess piece, and has quickly established notability at chess websites, and also web forums distinct from chess.

The huygens being a relatively new piece, and the fact that hardcopy literature is hardly ever written anymore, our analysis will need to rely heavily on the web. Based on offline sources this is acceptable: "Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources" (original bolding, not mine). Therefore all material presented here should be considered with no distinction in any way as to wether the material is from a hardcopy or on-line source.—LithiumFlash (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are still not getting it. I'd ask you to reread our guideline on reliable sources, but IIRC I've already asked you to do that, to no avail. There might not be a difference between using online and offline sources if both are equal in reliability; but when the online sources just happen to be unreliable and the offline sources happen to be reliable, then there is a difference. Double sharp (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that, if an individual piece appears in publications somewhere with some level of real editorial oversight, then it is reasonable to include in the article fairy chess piece. (Probably many of the things in the enormous table there should be removed, but I'm certainly not opening that can of worms.) But if that's really the only sourcing that exists then there is nothing to say in an article. The fact that there is no standard nomenclature and that online sources seem primarily interested in coming up with clever icons and making random assertions about piece strength (it all reminds me a bit of when I used to collect trading cards) doesn't help. Some chess variant games are definitely notable (even with real mentions in proper sources) but I'm extremely dubious about most of these piece articles. --JBL (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't decide if this should be treated as a real source or not. --JBL (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

IIRC Wildebeest is certainly an old enough variant that we should not have a problem getting serious sources about it (wasn't it played at NOST?). The princess and empress are chiefly notable for the multiplicity of Capablanca chess variations that have accumulated over the years; what I would be more interested in is to also show their traditional use in problems.

Incidentally, with the exception of those two pieces, I've never at all seen any of LithiumFlash's OR icons (and those two icons are not his) outside CVP; the standard in fairy chess problems is using inverted or rotated icons of other pieces. An inverted knight is usually a nightrider; one rotated 90 degrees may be some other leaper, like a camel or zebra.

As for piece strength; his site may be hosted by CVP, but Ralph Betza (FIDE master, prominent published chess-variant author in print, notable enough for an article) might be reliable enogh for some of these. If H.G.Muller has published his value findings (e.g. BN) it would also be something. (Sorry, I'm on my mobile and can't check immediately if he has or not.) Double sharp (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Because this page will hardly survive its AfD, and frankly shouldn't, I should request that this conversation be moved somewhere (maybe User:Double sharp/Fairy piece notability?) to preserve it. Double sharp (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I've sprinkled this all over, haven't I? I would certainly not object to moving/copy-pasting this (and any parts of related discussions I've started elsewhere) to a central location of your choosing. It would be a pleasant surprise (to me) if it turned out that there really are decent sources for these pieces that just haven't made it into the articles. (Though to be honest I kind of think that a de-cruft-ified version of fairy chess piece might be even better, and a good home for pieces that will probably never get past the stub level.) --JBL (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree w/ Double sharp on all points. p.s. Acc. Dickins a zebra, camel, and giraffe are [knight icon] rotated 90 deg, a mao is rotated 270 deg, a nightrider of course is rotated 180 deg. There are fairy applications for rotating all the standard icons, including pawn & king, to all three stops (90, 180, 270 deg). (Also used are circle, filled circle, half-filled circle, capital letter, double capital letters, hyphened double capital letters, "5" for fiveleaper, root-50-leaper uses square root of 50 as symbol, etc. Never petting-zoo images.) --IHTS (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for variant chess piece graphics to be emblematic of what the piece is. For example, the chess piece "Giraffe" can be depicted as a giraffe (refer to this): http://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/giraffe.html

In our analysis lets remember to refrain from conjecture. This evaluation should be based on reliable sources. (Such as I attempted to list above - where for some pieces some references were found, and in other cases nothing at all).—LithiumFlash (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

On topic of that emblematic icon for giraffe, it's an artistic creation chosen at the whim of the CVP submitter. Meanwhile, giraffe has repeated presence in respected fairy chess problemist literatures as a horizontal knight, or "G", that totally overwhelms your thin claim for WP:RS. So who is conjecturing? --IHTS (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)