Talk:Staunton chess set

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Chess Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Copyright

Hello, I am the author, Sean Evans, of the original article called: History of Staunton Chess Pieces by Sean Evans I have modified it placed here at Wikipedia and added inter-wiki-links to make it stronger and make it more accessible to the the general public. Please do not delete it. thank you. StauntonChess 11:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The article looks great to me. I just made the "theories" into subsections. The main thing it needs is for the red links to have their own articles. Bubba73 (talk), 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contempory times

  • For over a century and a half, this style has been cherished by players around the world. The superiority of the design lay in its well-balanced, easily recognized pieces. Such was its success that it will be the style of choice for play to this day and for many years into the future.

The "contemporary times" section seems to be editorializing a little too much. Bubba73 (talk), 01:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The "contemporary times" section is simply horrible and non-encyclopedic, so I deleted it. Quale 03:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It has some good ideas, but it reads like an advertisement. I think the first sentence is OK, except that "cherised" is not a good choice of words. While I consider the second sentence to be true, it seems like too much editoralizing. The third sentence is speculating about the future and is editoralizing or POV. Bubba73 (talk), 03:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Although the statement is probably true, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Especially the third sentence. The first and second statement need to be rewritten in a more neutral tone and should be accompanied with a reference. Let there not be an edit war regards, Voorlandt 09:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and rewrite it to make it more encyclopedic, as you call it, but don't just delete it. PianoKeys 09:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] links to common words

You should not link to common words. Read Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Bubba73 (talk), 23:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And [[1]] Bubba73 (talk), 23:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

The article is not referenced to wikipedia standards, so I'm tagging it accordingly. A few external links at the bottom of the page with no indication what is being used to support claims like those in the "First theory", "Second theory", etc. sections isn't enough. Quale (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Geocities site is not a reliable source. 12.198.138.114 (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A St. George style set

It appears this image was removed and re-added. In my view the articles looks better with the image and I see no need to remove it. If there is a better image then fine, but just to remove it takes away from the article. ChessCreator (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think I understand the concern that the image of the St. George style set isn't directly relevant to this article, but I think it's helpful to supply a contrasting earlier style. It's hard to explain what's special about the Staunton design and why it became the standard unless you can show an earlier style for comparison. Quale (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both for those comments. I added the St. George set photo and I restored it after it was deleted. In the edit comment when I restored it, I noted that it was in a section about older sets and that section mentions the St. George set and others. I thought it was useful for the reader to see how a Staunton set differed from other sets used at the time.
The section on older sets actually mentions four common styles at the time. The editor who deleted the photo of the St. George set said to make an article about it (the St. George set). But (1) I don't know enough about the history of the St. George set and the others, compared to the history of the Staunton set, and (2) the Staunton design is more prominent because it is the official standard. Perhaps there could be a good article about the history of chess sets, going back to the Lewis chessmen and others, but I don't know of a good source for that history. I think it would make a good article, though. Bubba73 (talk), 01:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with all your points. I'm not opposed to an article on the St. George style, but I think it would be hard to find enough sources to make it work. I think we could have a good article that covered several different designs of chess sets, since there are a number of patterns that are significant enough for mention but probably not individual articles. I don't know much about the subject, but I think sets with designs based on the American Civil War have been popular enough historically (for collectors and casual players) to be worthy of mention, and maybe some Lewis Caroll themes, Lord of the Rings/Middle Earth, etc. For serious play there are interesting differences in the set designs popular in the East including the Soviet Union and Russia. We should describe these somewhere, but we need the help of someone who knows something about this. Quale (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)