I think that it is not correct to change the name of the pieces of someone else's game, even for an editor.
Here Dog/Jolly Jumper/War Elephant have not been given by Betza.
If you don't want to remove those names in this page, you should at least insert a comment explaining for the readers who has named the pieces as such.
Well, this did not have a high priority, and I have been quite busy.
Although I admit that 'Jolly Jumper' was perhaps over-doing it, some of what you say here is not so obvious. Betza's contributions to the chessvariants community have been immense. But assigning names to pieces was not really his forte. And it is not uncommon at all for CVP editors to object to publication of new submissions because of improper naming of the pieces in their variant.
In the article at hand, Betza gives the move of the pieces, and refers to them by that. He does not give names, nor images. If, for the purpose of making a better diagram, I have to assign images, why not assign names as well. Especially in cases where the pieces with that move are well known, and do have established names. Like FD = Kirin, and NJL = NCZ = Bison.
Referring to the pieces like "FD (Kirin)" doesn't make much sense in the context of the Diagram, as the Betza notation for their move is already in another column of the piece table. I also do not list the Archbishop as "BN (Archbishop)".
So I will probably change the names to Kirin and Bison (is there a commonly used name for KA?), and perhaps add the remark that the diagram calls pieces by their usual names.
Well, this did not have a high priority, and I have been quite busy.
Although I admit that 'Jolly Jumper' was perhaps over-doing it, some of what you say here is not so obvious. Betza's contributions to the chessvariants community have been immense. But assigning names to pieces was not really his forte. And it is not uncommon at all for CVP editors to object to publication of new submissions because of improper naming of the pieces in their variant.
In the article at hand, Betza gives the move of the pieces, and refers to them by that. He does not give names, nor images. If, for the purpose of making a better diagram, I have to assign images, why not assign names as well. Especially in cases where the pieces with that move are well known, and do have established names. Like FD = Kirin, and NJL = NCZ = Bison.
Referring to the pieces like "FD (Kirin)" doesn't make much sense in the context of the Diagram, as the Betza notation for their move is already in another column of the piece table. I also do not list the Archbishop as "BN (Archbishop)".
So I will probably change the names to Kirin and Bison (is there a commonly used name for KA?), and perhaps add the remark that the diagram calls pieces by their usual names.