Talk:Goro goro shogi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Proposed merge with Shogi[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Merge to Shogi variants following suggestions of Aphaia and supporters. Klbrain (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

As this is only a variant I don't think it is notable enough to warrant its own page. I should be merged with Shogi as it doesn't seem to be mentioned there. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but also expansion of version-specific rules is needed. An excellent source for that is the Japan Shogi Association; after all, they are the creators of Goro Goro Shogi Silverturtle (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think they should be merged. It should though, have its own section so as not to confuse with the original Shogi page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Disagreed. While I admit it's dubious if this deserves to have its own article, there are over a dozen of shogi variants. It makes no sense to merge only it to Shogi article. Guess it's better to merge Shogi variants or whatsoever? --Aphaia (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC) slightly modified 02:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Aphaia. (Article chess has no variants defined or merged, only a section briefly summarizing their existence. Xiangqi article has a couple descriptions of variants. Why would Goro goro justify merge any more than any other of the 'Small variants' in the shogi variants table? Can this discussion be closed at this time as no-consensus? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it should get it's own page as all the variants have, and should be added to the tabular list on the Shogi Variants page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Aphaia; can't see the justification for the separate page (lack of evidence of independent notability); it should certainly be the small variants (as suggested by others). Klbrain (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.