Talk:Magical objects in Harry Potter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Novels / Harry Potter (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Harry Potter task force (marked as High-importance).

on Wizard's chess[edit]

Added a brief parenthetical note giving the reason why the Scandinavian Defense was used (because by far the most common response is an immediate capture).

(Irrelevant PS: We can infer that the White player does not really care which pieces get replaced by humans. If not, it would probably have gone for a Trompowsky the moment Ron took the place of the king's knight.) Double sharp (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've taken it out again. I'm of the opinion that we don't even need to identify the opening gambit, but seeing as it's in, might as well leave it. To clarify to such detail is excessive, and not needed in an article not directly related to chess. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that if the article doesn't give a reason for it, the reader won't see it as significant and it'll basically be trivia. Annoyingly, while this is really plausible (it is the only good response to 1.e4 that usually results in an immediate chapter), Silman's article doesn't explain the rationale for his choice of opening. So maybe the entire mention of the Scandinavian needs to go... Double sharp (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
TBH, I'd agree with that as well. I don't see the relevance importance of specifying the type of opening used... Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)