Graeme, you win! I added your short DHTs to the zigzag general, wazir, and parallel general. Looking at this one, the parallel general, your DHT is better than mine.
What if we labelled the catogories, or at least some? Examples would be Size; we could replace "mono" in the beginning of the DHT with "Size = 1", and for all pieces for which that is true, give no more info. For size = 4, we give more size info, eg: 2x2 rectangular [or "square"] etc.
Another would be "Range". I think saying "range = 1-4 [squares]" or just "Move = 1-4 squares" and leave the word range out entirely, would be very useful/interesting, and especially obvious to a casual reader or serious.
I do think a simple version of DHT for the beginning of the piece description would be doable. "Size", "Movement", and "Capture" would be the [first] 3 categories I'd consider/use, and put those 3 titles in every description. Then, it's obvious that in the description:
"Size: 4; 2x2; rectangular. Movement: 1-4 squares …"
that "2x2; rectangular" refers to size and not movement [because I *know* there are people who will otherwise swear that it means the piece must move in a square pattern, ending up on its starting point if it moves 4].
The objection to this is that my 3 proposed "beginner categories" cross the 5 Taxonomy categories. I don't think that will be a big deal, because this aspect of the piecelopedia can only be a guide to looking up pieces. The easy description will narrow a search considerably, and the piece-by-piece descriptions will nail it down, so to speak. Your expansion of straight and curved moves, for example, is exactly what the final classifications will need, Linneaus. ;-) Hey, at least one of us has to be old Carl, and unless we can recruit David Howe for this part [which, if he's fully rational, won't happen, but we can hope…]
We need easily searchable pieces, too. The page tags are the best way to do it in this wiki setup that I know of. The tags will have to be the descriptions, or a condensed version of them - "AF" could be the tag for the elephant, the oliphant, the shaman, and the twisted knight in my shatranj stuff alone. The digits, 0 thru 9, could be the size tags. That sort of thing. I'm obviously the one that will take first crack at that, based on the tried-and-true princilpe of "you saw it, it's your problem".
Wow, this is a bit of a skullcracker, but I still think it's doable. Okay, dude, it's your turn to fire back.
Enjoy,
Joe
