Talk:Steinitz Variation

Problems

There are (several) (Steinitz) (Variations), and the Steinitz V. of the Petrov described in this article isn't even (any) of the (best) (known) or most important. At first I thought this should be merged and redirected, but since a redirect to Petrov's Defence would be inappropriate, now I think it should become a disambig. Any thoughts? Quale (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed there are many Steinitz Variations. Not sure what 'disambig.' is that you propose. ChessCreator (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Quale it looks good. Nicely done. ChessCreator (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Please note that disambiguation pages are purely navigational devices, like redirects, and are similarly held to very strict standards. If this is going to be a disambiguation page, it will be held to these standards, which means that all titles that are merely WP:DABMENTIONs will be removed, and all images will be removed from the page. bd2412 T 01:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• I see your point. All other dab pages I can think of simply link to (generally unrelated) articles with similar names. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I would suggest merging it into Wilhelm Steinitz, but that article is already very long. I think it stands as an article as is, if the disambiguation tag is removed. bd2412 T 03:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

As there has been no objection or counterargument raised, I have removed the disambiguation tag from the page, and adjusted the lede slightly to make clear that this is not a disambiguation page. If any editor wishes to restore this page to the status of a disambiguation page, please gain consensus first at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. bd2412 T 17:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It started as a disambiguation, please present an alternative or leave it alone. No matter if lede says example wording or not it's still a dab page. It's not an article or a list as it can't be raised to being a notable topic. All it is is navigational aid and Quale has made it pretty. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 20:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Navigational aids don't need to be pretty, and are better without the extra images. This article is a fine destination in its own right; if it's not keepable as an article, it could be reduced to a dab page (losing all the illustrations and algebraic notation, and just link to the openings that have the ambiguously-named variation). But if the list and illustrations aren't notable in the article space, filing them under "disambiguation" doesn't suddenly grant them notability. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You are implying that a disambiguation page requires notability. What policy or guideline says that? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 20:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The same policy that requires notability for everything in Wikipedia. A disambiguation page only disambiguates articles with similar titles that exist in the encyclopedia; those articles must individually be notable, or they would not exist to be disambiguated. However, notability is not the issue here. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Examples of individual entries that should not be created, which states: "Do not include entries for topics that are not ambiguous (according to the linked article) with the title. Use list articles for lists of related topics if needed". Also see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set index articles, which provides a policy much closer to the contents of this page than a disambiguation page would. bd2412 T 20:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no doubt the article being linked to are notable in there own right. The 'Steinitz Variation' however only refers to a subset of the destination page. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 20:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

How about making this a set index, then. It seems to match up with the requirements for one exactly. bd2412 T 21:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC

Yes, agreed. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 21:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Good. Problem solved. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Me too. (I didn't know about set index until a few hours ago.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Per JHunterJ, if this were a disambiguation page, here is what it would look like:

Steinitz Variation may refer to:

• A kind of Caro–Kann Defence
• A kind of French Defence
• A kind of Petrov's Defence
• A kind of Ponziani Opening
• A kind of Scotch Game
• A kind of Sicilian Defence
• A kind of Two Knights Defense

Nothing else would be permitted to exist on the page, because disambiguation pages are not articles, they are navigational devices maintained by the disambiguation project. We don't make them pretty, we make them as brief as possible because readers are not supposed to stop and look at them, but to pass through them on the way to a correct destination.

A disambiguation page is a collection of links to articles that have the same name (like Mercury (planet) and Mercury (element), not a collection of related topics that fall into the same group. You can't throw a disambiguation tag onto such a page any more than you can throw a "featured article" tag on it without going through the FA process. In its present state, however, this page is basically an illustrated list, which is entirely permissible. It is not a disambiguation page, and if it were framed as one, it would probably end up getting deleted, as all of the titles on the page are at least questionable in their relative ambiguity. bd2412 T 20:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the Steinitz Variation of the French Defence is going to be questionable. There is a large part of a book on it. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 20:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that a "Steinitz Variation of the French Defence" exists is not at issue. Would someone refer to the "Steinitz Variation of the French Defence" without specifying what it was a variation of? Are there multiple people named Steinitz, such that there might be two different examples of a "Steinitz Variation" that are unrelated by personage? Is there a game other than chess that has Steinitz Variations? bd2412 T 20:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There probably aren't any sources that discuss the "Steinitz Variations". They are unrelated other than the fact that they are named after Steinitz. The exception is Steinitz Defense and Steinitz Defense Deferred in the Ruy Lopez. So I think the article would be better as a list, List of chess openings named after Steinitz or something like that. And some of them aren't variations, they are attacks or defenses. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Are they just named after him? I was under the impression that they are so named because they were either created by him or used by him. bd2412 T 21:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think he created them or used them, except for (probably) the Steinitz Defense Deferred. That seems to be started later, but it is related because it just delays the characteristic move by one move. But otherwise they don't have anything else in common. For instance, someone could play the Goldberg variations, but no chess player starts off by "I'm going to play one of the Steinitz variations". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

He both introduced and practiced them, except for the Petroff line which was introduced by Petroff and recommended and practiced by Steinitz, and except as Bubba mentioned re the Ruy Deferred line which came later. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Cf. Carl Schlechter#List of opening variations named after Schlechter. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)