In my opinion, writing in Piececlopedia is a sensitive issue. It is easier to write a page for 1 piece than to write a page for a complete Chess Variants, so we could get many controversial entries. What is written has to be very open-minded, or it will be useless and endless disputes. (on the names, the icon, the paternity, etc.)
First, I think that to deserve a mention there, a piece should be present into a minimum of variants to have some recognition. If possible, alternative names should be cited, which implies some serious research work by the author. Some pages are already at this level of quality in the Piececlopedia, but some are not.
What is a Dragon Bishop? (Betza's notation?). There are none here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_chess_piece
In my opinion, writing in Piececlopedia is a sensitive issue. It is easier to write a page for 1 piece than to write a page for a complete Chess Variants, so we could get many controversial entries. What is written has to be very open-minded, or it will be useless and endless disputes. (on the names, the icon, the paternity, etc.)
First, I think that to deserve a mention there, a piece should be present into a minimum of variants to have some recognition. If possible, alternative names should be cited, which implies some serious research work by the author. Some pages are already at this level of quality in the Piececlopedia, but some are not.