User talk:Burkefirm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] compendium of bridge conventions

Hi Edmund,

I am sorry, but I don't find your compendium of bridge conventions article, where you describe mostly your own "Zombie Jump Shift" convention, suitable for Wikipedia. Basically, it fails to meet notability criteria – see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and the convention yields zero google hits [1]. Normally, I would propose it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but since you're a newcomer, I don't think it would be quite polite, so I'd like to discuss it with you first.

Personally, I don't think that such a "compendium" article is necessary, as there's already Convention (bridge) article, and Cat:Bridge conventions is quite underpopulated.

Thanks for your interest, and I hope you will continue to improve Wikipedia bridge (and other) articles. Duja 15:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this how to reply?

Yes; some people prefer to talk at each other's page, but that turns out difficult to follow.

Yea, I found the category on Bridge Conventions later on. Sure aren't many there. That seems like the place to add conventions. I ssppose the method is to create a new page, and then mark it as having that category, which will then zap it underneath the right category.

Correct. Apart from categories, there are "List of X" articles, which serve as kind of "semi-portal". For example, there is Coup (bridge) which looks like that.

As for Zombie, -- gee, aren't ALL bridge conventions SOMEONE's original thought? I've never met one yet that wasn't at some time, something original. Even Stayman was original at one point.

I guess the objection is, that the article is written by one of the originators,...

tThat's the lesser evil – the bigger problem is that it doesn't seem to be a notable subject.

which frankly seems a bit perverse ... sort of like objecting to Crusade in Europe as a chronicle of the European Theater in WW2, because it was written by the Supreme Commander?

Erm, it's not considered (selecting a word...) OK here (WP:NOR, WP:VANITY) to write articles about yourself/your company/your band/your Ph.D dissertation/your book etc., especially if it's not a world-renowned thing (the definition of "renowned" being fairly wide). Your convention clearly falls into the category. The point is, if you invented a cool thingo (Zombie JS) and you want to popularize it, describe it in your home page, write an article or book, hire Meckwells to play it...; this is not a place for that. Once it becomes sufficiently famous, someone will come and write a Wikipedia article about it.

I don't know how many people play it in our neck of the woods (Atlanta), but the Google no-hit criterion reminds me of a famous saying about getting a bank loan: "You can only get a loan once you sufficiently establish that you don't need it. If you let on, however, that you really need it, you surely won't get it." Banks are second only to Yossarian in creating Catch-22s.

Google search is certainly not anything definitive and it's far from perfect, but it's the simplest tool available to everyone. As for Catch-22, sorry, that's how things work. The point is, use other resources to popularize The Cool Thing X – this is not a place for it.

But anyhow, it seemed like a place to start.

Well, we still don't have articles on Takeout double, Negative double, Lebensohl, Gerber convention, Cuebid, Gambling 3NT, Bath coup, Alphonse Moyse, Alvin Roth, Howard Schenken, Pierre Jais, Traveling sheet... Wouldn't one of those be a better place to start? :-D. Duja 08:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see a solution other than to list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compendium of bridge conventions. Please state your opinion there if you disagree. Duja 08:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)