Template:Did you know nominations/Dreierles
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Dreierles
Dreierles: the top trumps
- ... that German soldiers fighting with Napoleon brought home a Spanish modification to the Tarot game of Dreierles (pictured) that resulted in Baden's national game of Cego?
Source: Martin, Ulf and John McLeod (2018). "Playing the Game: Dreierles" in The Playing-Card, Vol. 47, No. 2, 81–84.- ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
- Reviewed: Cambus O' May bridge
Created by Bermicourt (talk). Self-nominated at 11:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC).
- New enough, long enough, QPQ done, not a copyvio, neutral, good sources as I understand it (the "distribution" section uses primary sources, but these just serve to augment by examples the "Rastatt area" claim that is from secondary sources). The sources used to verify the claim are offline as far as I can tell, so I can't verify that bit. I'm happy to AGF on this, but I'm a bit concerned that the hook statement is more confident than what is in the article ("McLeod suggests...");
@Bermicourt: could you clarify this and make it consistent? —Kusma (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC) - Image: I like the image, but it isn't really "own work", it is your photograph of a modern version of old Cego cards, whose design is probably PD due to age by now? —Kusma (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- The photo is mine. The Adler Cego design goes back at least to the early 19th century. I've updated the category info at Wiki Commons to reflect this. So over 200 years old and easily PD.
- Citations for the hook:
- The cited source, Schlager (1951) is titled (translated into English). "The Baden National Game of Cego and the other popular card games in Baden and on its Borders".
- Martin and McLeod (2018) also refer to it being called the "national card game of of Baden."
- Martin and McLeod (2018) go on to state that "While some writers such as Schlager have assumed that Dreierles is a simplified 20th century variant of Cego, the truth is almost certainly the opposite, that Dreierles was the earlier game and Cego was created from it by superimposing a different method of using the blind. This method could have been borrowed from the Spanish Hombre variant Cascarela, which would account for the story that Cego was brought to Baden by Napoleonic soldiers after 1812." I've strengthened the text to reflect the article's use of "almost certain".
- The Black Forest history site gives the following account (translated): "It was at the beginning of the 19th century. Baden had just become a Grand Duchy and was allied with France. In 1808, the Grand Duke [of Baden] provided Napoleon with two battalions of soldiers for his war against Spain. It can be assumed that the Baden recruits - many from the Black Forest - were not enthusiastic about going to a war in which the influence of the major European powers was contested. But this time the soldiers had brought something: a new [Spanish] game called Hombre that was taught to them by French soldiers. However, the people of Baden were more familiar with tarot playing cards from the Habsburg monarchy, to which large parts of the country still belonged until the founding of the Grand Duchy. The game was adapted to the tarot cards and the name Cego (or Zigo) from the Spanish "ciego" for "blind" became common...After the soldiers from Baden returned, the game spread mainly among clergymen and officials..." HTH. I'll add the references to the end of the relevant sentence. Bermicourt (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- New enough, long enough, QPQ done, not a copyvio, neutral, good sources as I understand it (the "distribution" section uses primary sources, but these just serve to augment by examples the "Rastatt area" claim that is from secondary sources). The sources used to verify the claim are offline as far as I can tell, so I can't verify that bit. I'm happy to AGF on this, but I'm a bit concerned that the hook statement is more confident than what is in the article ("McLeod suggests...");
