![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
John plaut, I added the banner above. Artithicles with the banner do show up on some automatically-generated lists, and in some automatically-generated categories (see the Assessment section of WP:WPCB). But it does not help track new articles automatically, as far as I know. -- P64 ( talk) 22:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Which so-called Blackwood conventions should be covered separately rather than as sections of Blackwood convention? Alternatively, which sections of the latter article should also be expanded as "main articles"? Do you know when this convention was invented? very early? does that make a difference?
The two-word name Byzantine Blackwood would be a good article title without the word "convention" (but it isn't worth changing). On the other hand, Cappelletti is likely to be renamed Cappelletti convention sometime. For more information see Category:Bridge conventions. -- P64 ( talk) 22:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that "convention" is redundant in the title of this article. I've never heard anyone call the convention anything other than "Byzo" (usually), "Byzantine", or (rarely) "Byzantine Blackwood". Also, and then again ... yet: I can't remember the last time I met anyone who played Byzo. Unless it was me and my then partner, 30 years ago?
I submit that the article should be merged into the main Blackwood article as a sub-section. It's a variant of EB's idea, in no way an independent one like some of the other 4NT conventions. Neato, but most likely obsolete.
Narky Blert ( talk) 01:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)