Talk:Sword

These historical articles are great but I can't help but flinch at the state they are in. This article alone had like five misspelled words, tense-changing in the paragraphs, and reads terribly in a place or two. It might be best to only have the sword listings written in past or current tense too. It's kind of jarring to have the khopesh be written in past-tense and the later swords in current-tense when both are obviously out of use. Thoughts? --FatherDuke (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to fix it, though any help would be appreciated.--Newerfag (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

One thing that has been bothering me is in the "Shortcomings which should be acknowledged" says "either one of those two weapons" and is clearly mentioning the not sword weapons mentioned in that section. Unfortunately there are 3 such weapons (halberds, axes, and spears). --Emerald Claw (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

---

"A huge chunk of the reputation of Japanese swordcraft comes from the fact that, by the time Europeans forced their way into the island, swords had became largely a ceremonial part of officer's uniforms in the Western militaries and little attention was given to their crafting that their quality had become quite poor, not even half as good as they were made but a century before. Low-tech Japanese swords, on the other hand, were still crafted for actual battle and killing people rather then pointing at the enemy to inspire your troops, so they were of the highest quality their technology allowed. Naturally westerners were amazed by the quality of Japanese swords compared to their own stamped pass-produced junk, and here's where Glorious Nippon Steel bullshit took its origins."
I thought that europe still made swords intended for military use, at least for Calvary, when the U.S. politely asked japan to open up the ports. Calvary in general were largely considered obsolete by the end of WWI, but were very much in militaries at the start of the war.--Emerald Claw (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

---

You're being petty. If you can't think of a way this content is /tg/-relevant or why it should stay in, it probably shouldn't stay in.--The Forgefather (talk)

This page does the following things...

• Covers how they are used both on a on a one to one area
• Covers basic sword history, documenting different varieties of swords and how they were used.
• Addresses their strengths and weaknesses
• Addresses common misconceptions and errors relating to swords

It is not ideologically driven, it focuses on a relevant area. Swords are a common element of fantasy and tabletop games.Focusing entirely on how swords work in game is not viable as while two differnt gaming systems may have Longswords they will handle them with their own specific rules If you think it's too dry PUNCH IT UP. Add jokes here and there as needed. Don't just burn the whole thing down and act like your being clever. If everyone's response to something was simply to blank it the wiki would be nothing but a a number of blanked pages with 'Deleted'.--A Walrus (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

And how are any of those things...

• /tg/ content as opposed to /k/ or /his/

Swords are found in RPGs, but only a miniscule section of this article covers their relation to RPGs and fantasy, which was not deleted. And if everyone's response was to add article after article of irrelevance, the wiki would be nothing but a truncated copy of Wikipedia with more spelling errors and case disagreements.--The Forgefather (talk)

Premodern weapons and armor are as at least as much the subject of /tg/ discussion as they are on /k/. /his/ generally does not pay much attention to weaponry, either modern or premodern. Often as not there is some variant of an Arms and Armor Thread which gets filled to capacity.--A Walrus (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

To a point. Most don't care beyond how it relates to fantasy roleplay, meaning they don't care much beyond the role a weapon filled and how it was used, and that does not justify dry paragraph after dry paragraph of ancillary data.--The Forgefather (talk)

In the vast majority of cases at least some interest in history goes hand in hand with an interest in fantasy. There are also Warhammer fans disinterested in Magic the Gathering and vice versa. If you think it's too dry the productive approach is punch it up a bit, add jokes as needed.--A Walrus (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Some interest, in some cases. And even then it's strictly secondary to the fantasy itself. If we started making pages for every ancillary interest of fa/tg/uys, we would cease to have a coherent, useful /tg/ resource and instead have an overbloated /b/ clusterfuck. With regards to humor you could do the same yourself while creating a page, rather than posting something you know does not fit 1d4chan's tone. The existing examples should be edited, and I do so myself should I think of something to add, but that is a symptomatic treatment that is not as effective as ensuring the problem does not occur in the first place. To use an example, it's inadvisable for the same reason it is frowned upon when a user creates creates a two sentence article and marks it a stub for someone else to complete. It's much more productive to ask a user to cease producing shit than chasing after him with a plastic bag and a shovel.--The Forgefather (talk)

• Well I've taken a look at the discussion page, and I see some pretty good reasons as to why that long section about swords should NOT be deleted, and once again Forgefather you're acting like a child who's trying to get rid of anything they don't personally like. Some day you're just going to have to accept that people don't have the same interest/disinterest in the things that you do and that you cannot end an argument with "Because I say so!" Because you do not need a reason to add stuff, you need a reason to take stuff off the wiki and this was explained to you in at least half a dozen talk sections now. -- Triacom (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • And I have provided rebuttal to those reasons, which you conveniently ignore. I have endeavored to keep any sections which are pertinent to this website's subject matter. To reiterate: Swords in and of themselves are relevant to fantastic RPGs, which are /tg/-related; a long-winded history of the sword and its use in history is not, nor is an equally tedious section on the production methods of swords. The Dice page, to you use an example, does not ramble for page upon page about the use of pig knuckles in the Roman Empire. You seem to make this "child" claim very frequently, whether it is warranted or not. Is it projection I detect?--The Forgefather (talk)

Oh I've read the rebuttels, you ask how it's /tg/ content ignoring how it's written and ignoring that all forms of those swords are in tabletop games, not to mention the fact that /tg/ has had multiple discussions of swords in the past. If anything it's more related to /tg/ then a lot of the tabletop games on this wiki. A "long-winded" history of the swords is relevant because of how /tg/ has discussed them in the past, remember this isn't just a wiki for tabletop games, but for /tg/ in general. I also make the "child argument" frequently because it describes how you are acting without being needlessly insulting. Here's a tip on how you can improve though, try to get people to agree with you that sections are irrelevant in the talk pages first before deciding, by yourself, that they are irrelevant. -- Triacom (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

How many times must I repeat this? Swords, yes. Very occasionally, a general history of swords if one wants to know a snippet of it in order to make his game more "true." Every sordid detail on swords and their uses? No.

>A "long-winded" history of the swords is relevant because of how /tg/ has discussed them in the past

Again, fallacy of composition. /tg/ discusses some things about swords, not all of them. See the dice example you failed to acknowledged, or if you need another: /tg/ discussing horses does not mean what type of oats destriers like to eat is ever discussed.--The Forgefather (talk)

Except /tg/ has discussed the history and forging of swords before, as well as the different types, which is why I didn't acknowledge that dice example, it wasn't pertinent to the conversation. When I undid your massive delete on the horse page, that wasn't because I want to keep the content or that the content was relevant, it was to point out that massive deletions are wrong, especially when something can be re-written. -- Triacom (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

And there are many better places one can go to peruse that information, as it isn't /tg/ specific. /tg/ threads have frequently shifted to discussing anything from anime to penetrating ability of firearms to US Presidential candidates. Just because something, sometime, was mentioned on /tg/ doesn't warrant an entire article on the subject, especially when said content is a glorified copy-paste of one of the aforementioned better sources.

>to point out that massive deletions are wrong

Suddenly, things become much clearer. Why the moral superiority? You're a damn wiki editor, of a *chan board no less. 90% of your role is cleaning shit up for other people to view, and you do it for free. What gives you the right to sit upon such a high horse?--The Forgefather (talk)

Yes, there are more informative places to go, however /tg/ discusses them in-depth AND they're found in nearly every tabletop game that you can think of, which makes it related. Also we do keep track of events that /tg/ discusses in detail, even if they don't have a tabletop game, see the Rebecca Black meme or the fifteen views of asscrack page as an example. "Why the moral superiority?" Because I don't think my opinion is any greater than anybody else's. That's why I talk in talk pages, and the few times I've marked a page for deletion I've asked for people to defend it in the talk page several days before I put the delete page up. When something comes out that gives massive changes to a faction, or if I've come up with a way that I thought would make the page a lot better I ask in the talk page how we can implement those changes best because I do not want to start an edit war and I think what other people have to say matters. -- Triacom (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You are doing nothing more than repeating the same point repeatedly.

>Yes, there are more informative places to go, however /tg/ discusses them in-depth

Citation needed. I've seen weapons discussed on an occasional basis, I'll grant you that, and even on rarer occasions a bit of weapon history IRL, but nowhere near the level found here; certainly it is not 5 times more in-depth or lengthly than the amount of discussion that goes into fantasy entirely.--The Forgefather (talk)

Are you familiar with the Katanas are underpowered meme? That alone sparked several in-depth discussions into swords, how they're made and their use, however if a page goes a little farther than the board did, you do know that's okay right? It's not wrong to go into more detail, especially when the details they're going into were brought up already on /tg/. Also I've repeated the same points because they still have relevance against your repeated argument. -- Triacom (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• • • Fact is, you're both right. Some articles stray too much into tangents unnecessarily due to overzealous authors writing endlessly on subjects they know about, to the point that it strains the mind to figure what actually has to do with gaming. I for one have no idea why there is a page on the history of China, but on the same note, I have no desire to remove it. I found the history and manufacture of swords to be quite interesting, and it pleasantly turned into a topic of discussion amongst my gaming group, because sometimes its good to have some sort of narrative and context when you make that skill check. Sure I googled it afterwards, but I found it interesting that /tg had an article on swords. Furthermore, [Wikifag has come out in the past] and slapped users on the wrist for cutting huge swathes of content from pages. I fully realise that this page wasn't blanked for deletion, and that an effort was made to keep "relevant" info on the page, but all it has done is spark an edit war and waste energy going to and fro over something that wasnt actually "bad", just of little consequence. More content by itself is not bad unless it is either spam or nonsensical rantings, it only needs to find its proper place, and rather than waste time and effort tearing it down, it's probably best to either leave it or improve it, the only end result here is to stir up the hornets nest and make people angry. From what I can see on this page, concealing the history and use of swords in a collapsible section that doesn't clutter the page has sorted the problem for all parties.--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
      • More content is not by any means necessarily good. Are we to become the Administratum, collecting every scrap of data that falls into its hands, fearing to delete anything, until it is left a bloated, unusable mess?--The Forgefather (talk)

"Are we to become the Administratum, collecting every scrap of data that falls into its hands" One question, is it /tg/ related or something that happened/was discussed on /tg/? Then YES, since this is a wiki about /tg/! Also the section I restored is in a collapsible envelope, claiming that it adds bloat is misrepresentation at best and lying at worst. Here's an example of how you could improve, you don't want things to be spread across multiple pages? Make a section on one page to put them all in and collapse them, while adding a redirect on the original page! Deletion is not the only way to solve problems on this wiki, there's a lot of other things you could do instead that are far more productive. -- Triacom (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

---

A Proposed Solution: Move all the historical stuff off onto another page, titled "Historical Swords" or something like that, and advertise it on this page. The history of swords is actually somewhat relevant to RPGs, and worth giving details to the interested, but not of sufficient importance to be worth including here. 2001:558:6045:E1:95DC:8C25:9D52:72A2 04:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

If it's not of sufficient importance to include here, then it's not of sufficient importance to be included on the wiki. Making a separate page just to talk about it is extremely redundant, and if you look up there was discussion to whether or not it should be included here, and Forgefather couldn't come up with a legitimate reason for why it shouldn't be included. Even though Forgefather refuses to accept this and repeatedly tries to delete the page section, that does not change the outcome. -- Triacom (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have not attempted to delete this page. Or do you just assume that about every red number big enough to trigger you? On similar pages, a similar process of paring down redundancy has been performed, to no contest from you. All I have done is shorten down some very long-winded paragraphs, and only outright deleted the ones which were no more than whinging about "muh realisms."--The Forgefather

Well my mistake on saying page instead of section, and I'm actually in the process of re-writing the section of the Imperium that was scaled down, I simply didn't object to it in the horse page because, UNLIKE HERE, /tg/ doesn't go into detail about different breeds of horse. We've also already gone over the real-life shit portion of the article and why you shouldn't delete them, yet you ignored the discussion and deleted it anyway, once again just because you didn't like it. -- Triacom (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

And I haven't deleted that section, I've trimmed it down. And for the last time, that isn't a legitimate criticism. All edits, on every page, can be boiled down to "I didn't like the old version" once the various justifications are removed. No one has ignored any discussion, and I have provided response or refutation for what points you may have made. If I were more petty, this would be the point where I say you're undoing edits only because you don't like them.--The Forgefather

And I've already explained why it's relevant. Removing a relevant section isn't a legitimate edit, if you scroll up you'll see you stopped replying to my arguments after I countered yours, though I'm happy you admit to changing it due to not liking it, whereas other people will change articles to be more accurate or reflect what it's about better, or to even make it more relevant to /tg/. -- Triacom (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a qualitatively different edit, which necessitates qualitatively different discussion. Anything you may or may not have proven above is irrelevant to it.--The Forgefather

Knock it off Forgefather, your edits being "qualitatively different" do not change the matter at hand, that you're still removing content people want to keep. You're splitting hairs by saying otherwise. If you want an "official stance" on the matter check wikifag's comments on what is "relevant" on the talk:main page. But paring it down to the state you left them in practically rendered the sections irrelevant and barely even worth keeping, though I suspect that was your intent. Either way it was hardly constructive. The solution was already given earlier: put it in a collapsible section so that it doesn't clutter up the page needlessly and you don't have to look at it since it offends you so much. You've picked a fight that you really won't win--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Dark Angel, as for this "qualitative edit" how is it a different edit when you're literally doing the exact same edit as before? You don't get to decide what's high quality for the wiki or what's low quality for the wiki, and besides everything else, that's definitely you saying the wiki should conform to your own personal tastes. Also if everything I've said above is irrelevant, then everything YOU said above is irrelevant, so you need to post a legitimate reason (that isn't irrelevant) here before deleting it. -- Triacom (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Tell me how, exactly, is making a bunch of different sections shorter because they were too wordy is the same thing as deleting the whole section. Go ahead. That's the exact same thing that happened with Communism, Imperium of Man, Horse, and I'm sure a few others that I'm missing, and you didn't complain then.--The Forgefather

Inaction in one or even several instances does not mean that people agree with you. You've hit a wall here and I'm not even involved with reverting your edits. And as for making things shorter being the same as deleting them... You've not yet refuted that people want to keep the info you delete (yes, removing walls of text and leaving one sentence still counts as deletion, you're just rules lawyering between RAW and RAI) nor the fact that it doesnt clutter the page when concealed in a box. Finally: Does "chink speak for big knife" seriously make the article any better than what it was?--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

If the data imparted remain more or less the same after contracting the paragraph to a sentence, then yes, there is a substantial difference.--The Forgefather

That's true, IF it did, however since the data DOESN'T remain the same, then there is no difference. -- Triacom (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Then what information, pray tell, has been lost? Use examples.--The Forgefather

Everything you deleted. Are you seriously doing this? You removed nearly all the information that was in the following sections: Pros and cons of being armed with a sword, Anatomy of a Sword, Types of Swords, The Ancient Days, Medieval Times, The Far East, Other places, Sword and Shot, Sword related stupidity, Love and Hate, Carrying a sword, Double wielding, and that's not even all of them. You can't delete 65k of text and pretend like it doesn't have any impact, especially when we've already been over how it's relevant to /tg/. -- Triacom (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't waste you time arguing with Forgefather. From what I read in this conversation he clearly don't want to hear any opinion different from his own and so you cannot convince him to stop vandalizing this page. Go straight to the Wikifag and ask for a temporary ban for him or protection for this page Mezmerro (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have considered that, but I'd like it to be a last resort (if Forgefather keeps it up I'll certainly do it), and if I did do that I'd also ask if Wikifag could check whether or not Asorel and Forgefather are the same person. -- Triacom (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I asked for a single example, you gave me a generalized summary of what I already know. A little easier, then, I'll pick the Pros and Cons section for you. What sure substantive data was lost from it?--The Forgefather

And if I were interested in vandalism, why would I bother discussing it?--The Forgefather

For the sheer joy of it, of course. I for myself also enjoy a good shitstorm of an internet discussion where neither side even considers the possibility of other changing their opinion, however I prefer to go to political forums for that purpose rather then figuratively speaking shitting in the place I where I sleep and eat. Mezmerro (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You have a very poor understanding of what the word 'vandalism' means. That, or you are deliberately misconstruing it for your own benefit.--The Forgefather

I'm not playing your game Forgefather, you asked for an example, I gave you several, also this IS vandalism, deleting massive amounts of content because you don't like it even though it is relevant is without a doubt, vandalism, and if you continue I, and I suspect several other users will treat you as a vandal. -- Triacom (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

A vandal seeks indiscriminate destruction, and to perform as much as possible where it can be seen. If I were a vandal, I would:

• • • • • • • • • • • • Give up on this page once encountering resistance
                      • Not waste time arguing when I could be vandalizing more pages
                      • Pick a prominent article, not a little-visited one that would be mostly ignored if not for recent events

Going further off of this, you cannot remain logically consistent while claiming that I am both A) vandalizing the page, and B)changing it because I don't like it. The former is wanton destruction, and the latter an attempt, however misguided it may or may not be, at improving the wiki. You can continue to argue in favor of this page without resorting to insult, or an attempt to justify your righteousness, or whatever you hope to accomplish by labeling any sort of deletion vandalism.

>you don't like it even though it is relevant

Relevance has not been the issue for some time. Different edit, with different intentions, and different outcome with regards to what has changed. The most recent edit was almost exclusively taking long, dry descriptions and shortening them to a couple sentences that had a bit more crudeness and vulgarity. When I asked for examples of content that was lost, you didn't provide me any, only listing some sections of the article, all but one of which remain intact. So, one more time: Of these sections, in which has information been lost? Not bytes, information. Where exactly has one of my edits for brevity resulted in a significant reduction of what is actually being said?--The Forgefather

"A vandal seeks indiscriminate destruction" which is what you did to the sword page, especially in regards to the information in the section I listed. "and to perform as much as possible where it can be seen" You can always see it on the recent changes page, and I know I'm not the only one who watches that a lot. Also the reason most vandals need Wikifag to take care of them is because they don't give up easily, continuously vandalize the same page, and they pick whichever articles they can, not just the popular ones. I can certainly be consistent in claiming that you're vandalizing it because you don't like it, or that you don't even realize you're vandalizing the page. "Relevance has not been the issue for some time." Are you joking? That was the issue and it still is the issue, the tiny blurbs with a racial slur that you changed the descriptions to are by themselves irrelevant, you did NOT take long dry descriptions and shortened them, you outright removed nearly all of the information, and yes, removing the information, causes information to be lost. -- Triacom (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey Forgefather, why don't you start giving reasons as to why the information needs to be deleted shortened? As of yet you haven't given any. -- Triacom (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Because it's always better to say more with less. Since you don't seem capable of discriminating between data and information, I wouldn't expect you to understand that concept. You seem hell-bent on this "vandal" smear of yours, so I'll leave you to it and let you make a fool of yourself. I await with baited breath how your equalize using the talk page to indiscriminate vandalism, I'm sure it will be entertaining to read.--The Forgefather

I've said this dozens upon dozens of times. Hell, I even demonstrated how to do it on the horse page and I didn't see anyone claiming that I was a vandal there. Triacom, please take the time to see things from my point of view and ask this question: which is easier for the person most likely to visit this page to read, a huge-ass textwall or a handful of sentences conveying the exact same information? In any event, you two can continue this in the section I started, this is getting ridiculous.--Newerfag (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dark Angel, you said it better then I could've. I've also already covered those other pages earlier in the conversation Forgefather and I'm not going to re-type what I've already said, if you're not going to read it there then you're not going to read it here. -- Triacom (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Dual Weapon Fighting

To keep this entirely separate from the issue above, I've considered removing the section on dual-wielding and giving it its own page. There is nothing specific to "swords" about using two weapons at the same time so it probably deserves its own page. Especially when you consider how different game systems approach it from a rules perspective, usually by hitting characters with hefty penalties for doing it, unless they train for it exclusively. Any new page would also probably discuss the influence and prevalence of two-weapon fighters in our fiction and gaming, like how so many Drizzt clones popped up, how ambidexterity seems to be a common occurrence in fantasy, or why do Rangers always seem to be associated with it?--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You Can Stop Now

I think we've heard enough from both sides regarding the recent edit war now, so instead of continuing it, do us all a favor and work towards a compromise that you can.somehow agree on. Otherwise, I'll just ask Wikifag to ban the both of you because the alternative is to have the page ping-ponging between losing information and being a long, rambling block of words that I can't look at without hurting myself. And I say that as one of the people who added a big chunk of the text in the first place. --Newerfag (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Compromise was one of my motivations behind the second edit, as it seemed to work well enough with other pages. At the very least, I would have hoped it would shift matters from the inane circular discussion that was currently being had.--The Forgefather

We already had a compromise Newerfag, I collapsed the section so that somebody doesn't have to read it if they don't want to. I didn't have a problem when you made the horse page a lot smaller because /tg/ doesn't usually discuss varying horse breeds, I didn't have a problem with it on the communism page for the same reason, here though? Removing that amount will delete a lot of what /tg/ has talk about before, and as for what's easier to read, a collapsible section is easier because even it takes up less space than Forgefather's edit and doesn't bloat up the page and yet for some reason that's not good enough for Forgefather who'll just ignore any previous discussion so long as they can get their way. I'm not against compromise, for example I'll be re-writing that "life in the Imperium" bit on the Imperium page because you deleted too much however I'm not going revert it. -- Triacom (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't work as a compromise because you just sweep the contentious work under the rug instead of addressing any of it; you can't call it a compromise if everything that has been called an issue is still present. And I just said I was fine with compromise, why don't you start working towards that instead of demonizing me with every second breath?--The Forgefather

Sweeping under the rug? How exactly is that sweeping it under the rug? There are plenty of pages that have boring sections, should we shorten the lasgun section to the same degree? How about the Volkite page? The Bolter page? The Power Armour page? Every page about equipment goes into detail about it, all I did was make the details avoidable if you don't want them, not to mention when have you ever shown yourself capable of compromise Forgefather? -- Triacom (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Once again, you manage to ignore my main point, and horribly misinterpret everything you do address. I'm done trying to reason with you if this is all the response I receive.--~~

You sure won't get a compromise if you keep acting as if the other guy is an enemy. How about you list out exactly what you want changed on the page, and use your user space as an example of what it would look like? Right now anyone with eyes can see that neither of you is willing to budge even an inch on the subject, and as I mentioned I am seriously considering asking Wikifag to intervene in this personally.

Well if we're being perfectly honest, I'm really not scared at all of you going to Wikifag, especially since this issue was already settled a long while ago (and once this is done I might go to them anyway depending on how other things go), however since I'd like to reach a compromise, I've altered the main page as an idea of how I'd edit it to retain the same information, and then reverted it. Most of the stuff on there should not be cut given how popular the varying types are in fiction (even WFB has many variants of the swords) and the ones I did cut were the more uncommon variants that aren't usually used. As for removing the section about fictional swords not working in real life, that's part of the humour, everybody can look at fictional swords and note why we don't have them today, removing it serves no purpose besides making the wiki more dry, and since when was knowing more about something bad? With that attitude you might as well delete 90% of the Space Marines page, whereas I deleted what is trivial/barely known knowledge at best, as well as repeated information. -- Triacom (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

A start. Whole paragraphs on every single variation is still far too wordy. Most of that can be condensed into a sentence or two.

>that's part of the humour, everybody can look at fictional swords and note why we don't have them today, removing it serves no purpose besides making the wiki more dry

I...what? How is it funny? It's one pedant complaining about Hollywood ignoring history in favor of dramatic flair. What exactly is funny about it? And no part of the Space Marines page that I can see has similar content, I have no idea what you're trying to say with that.--The Forgefather

All right, why don't you mention what sections those are as well as reasons as to why they need to be shortened? Also just because you don't get something doesn't mean other people don't find it fun/funny, I find it fun/funny, I know other users (pretty sure people like Thannak) find that fun/funny, and in fact we recently had a new user account made that says "I enjoy comparing real life science to things in 40k, so I might occasionally make notes about that, especially as it pertain's to the setting's unique biology." -- Triacom (talk) 07:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Some of them can say. But you're going to have a hard time convincing me that carrying on about swords not making the right noise when drawn or being worn on the wrong hip is anything other than bitter nitpicking.--The Forgefather

Bitter? That's making fun of a stereotype that appears in nearly every single movie that includes a sword (as well as some books), and as such a stereotype that a lot of people think is real, it certainly isn't any sort of hateful thing, it's just harmless mockery happens a lot on this site. Not addressing it in a section labeled "sword related stupidity" would be ridiculous. -- Triacom (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You know, if it comes off as autistic bitching, that's usually a sign that the humor isn't as good as you think it is. In my opinion, that section is one we don't need quite that badly At the very least, it needs a major rewrite that makes it look like it's not just splitting hairs. --Newerfag (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you name for me one sentence in there that qualifies as bitching? The entire thing is about wrecking a stereotype and why that kind of thing doesn't actually happen, as well as mentioning what happened instead. -- Triacom (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Autism is defined as an unreasonable fixation on the minute, and on which side of your hip a scabbard rests is undeniably so, along with most of the rest.--The Forgefather

Perhaps my word choice was poor. What I meant is that the whole section spends so much time "analyzing" and going into detail why the stereotypes are wrong that it sucks out every scrap of humor that might have been present. It's fine to be informative, but that section goes to an extreme and ends up sounding like a pedantic lecture on why fantasy depictions are wrong and why anyone who uses them is an idiot. That's not the kind of thing this wiki needs or wants.--Newerfag (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Well if you'd like to shorten that "Carrying a sword" section then I doubt anyone would complain, but I still fail to see how any of this is bitching or how it calls people who do it idiots since it never does either of those. It just explains the difference between real-life and fantasy. -- Triacom (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Now I'd like to ask you both some questions:

• What do you personally see as the most vital information on the page- the stuff that the page would be reduced to should it be stripped to the bare minimum needed to serve its purpose?
  • Swords as they appear in RPGs and the settings in which they take place.--The Forgefather
• What information here is least relevant to the subject matter, and could be removed without the average reader noticing its absence?
  • Sections that do nothing more than whine about fantasy swords being unrealistic, closely followed by overly specific historical information. Very few would care if the historical sections were reduced to succinct, general statements rather than a paragraph for every possible variant of curved single-edged sword that exists.--The Forgefather

• And finally, how much information do you consider to be the optimal balance between not having enough info and triggering the "TOO MANY WORDS" response that I believe is the root concern Forgefather has with the page?

Get those answered in a way you both agree on, and maybe the rewrite can begin in earnest. --Newerfag (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this info as a whole is a great resource to GMs if they aim to create a believable semi-historical setting of their own or to better understand what is going on in already established settings. Though, admittedly, this article would be far better off as a collection of relevant links instead.

Snnnzzzz...

Right, now as fascinating as I'd normally find things like this, I come to 1D4chan as much as to laugh as I do to be informed (and channel autism). As of now, this page is as dry as the Kalihari, with only the occasional oasis to relieve me. This needs to be remedied, otherwise you'll end up TLDRing most readers who came in. Humor is the expectation here, and humor is what we should strive for. --Voivode1 (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

If you'd like to add in humour, go right ahead, however I don't think humour should take the place of some information, just like it doesn't in pages like the bolter page, melta page, lasgun page, power armour page, and so on. -- Triacom (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Nor in those pages does information take the place of humor. It must have both, or it isn't an article fitting with the tone of 1d4chan.--The Forgefather

"Nor in those pages does information take the place of humor." Well that's a flat out lie. The vast majority of sections in those pages are without humour. -- Triacom (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Witchers and their steel and silver swords

OK, so to the fag who wrote that witchers are alchemists who make their own weapons: you're wrong and don't peddle your speculation on vidya mechanics as core canon. I started writing an entire article here, but realized this is not the place for core Witcherverse lore. Here's the bottomline: in the Witcherverse silver(ed) weapons are rare and used very, very sparingly, to combat only a few of the supernatural enemies a witcher can encounter. They are not used like in vidya, where any non-human and non-animal can only be hurt by silver. --Taufag (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

As the guy who wrote the original version, I'm willing to take responsibility: I'm much more familiar with the vidya then the books, and wrote what I knew; I just knew that "here's one example that gets something of a pass", and why that pass existed was worth going into as it gave a reasonable example of doing one of the "magic materials" more or less right. (To be clear: Why it's allowed to pass by is more important here than fanboying: I only added it because I saw somebody holding up the games as a "less bad" case of silver weapons compared to some shitty (non-Witcher) fanfic.) Saarlacfunkel (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Triacom: As long as the fact that they're alchemists, and thus know how to do the maintenance and why that's the form of maintenance needed (and thus when to worry about said maintenance), I don't care if it's a separate point or unified into the previous one. It's the combination that matters. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The second point already said they spend a lot of time maintaining their equipment, like I said it goes without saying that somebody who maintains their equipment knows how to maintain their equipment. -- Triacom (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You'd be surprised at how far you can go without knowing the "whys" of maintenance. Knowing "how" and knowing "why" to do something can be very different. (And I've seen quite a bit of the distinction in my occasional studies of programming. Go look up "Cargo Cult Programming", and then trust me when I say that it's actually fairly common in certain situations.) Saarlacfunkel (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

And the Witcher universe is not 40k, I don't recall anyone in that setting who uses a silver sword without knowing how and/or why they need to maintain it. -- Triacom (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)