Talk:Broadsword (disambiguation)

Tibia
Tibia? If someone doesn't clarify this in the next few days I'm cutting it --Peregrine (Preceding incompletely signed comment added by Peregrine (talk • contribs) 12:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC))

Disambiguation?
I don't think this is a disambiguation page. It isn't a page with the sole purpose of linking to multiple articles that might alternatively be titled "Broadsword; it simply explains several related meanings of the term. I think it's really just an article stub.  I'd propose we remove the disambiguation template, which will also mean that people can stop using Template:Page d to link to it.  Any objections?  TSP (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This does not work as a disambiguation page. I am changing it back. Megalophias (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Beginning in which century?
Doesn't "... for four centuries, beginning in the 17th century and continuing until the advent of firearms..." need amendment? &mdash;151.198.251.215 (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd say it does. A source from 1911 that claims it was the preferred armament in England until the 21 century? Sounds a bit unlikely. (80.101.36.43 (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC))


 * Does anyone have access to the source book (my library doesn't have it) to verify? Was this just a typo perhaps? Peter (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

August 2012 cleanup
As the old version was lacking information and not according to the MOS:DAB I started fixing that and got help from WP:WikiProject Disambiguation. I don't see the benefit of ZarlanTheGreen's edit warring and asked him to discuss here. --Trofobi (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The old version did not lack any information that your version added. I challenge you to point out any bit of information that it lacked. On the contrary, your version removes quite a few bits of rather significant information. Also, while you have claimed that it doesn't comply with MOS:DAB (which it doesn't have to do. MOS:DAB isn't a policy, jut a guideline), you have utterly failed to explain in what way it doesn't comply. You have made a claim, but it is highly unclear what you mean by it. As to the accusation of edit warring, you are far more guilty of that, as far as I can see. I would advise you to follow the principle of BOLD, revert, discuss. Following that, one can note that you were bold (made your, quite significant, edit), got your edit reverted ...but failed to respond to it by discussing. You responded by re-reverting it. You seem to push for the new version to be active, while it is discussed, rather than the more reasonable response of keeping the article to the previous consensus (i.e. the previous version), until the matter has been discussed properly. What possible reason could you have for doing so?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation pages are for navigation to articles, where the rather significant information resides. While you have claimed that it doesn't have to comply with MOS:DAB it can, and should unless there's a good reason (and consensus) not to. Arming sword does not mention it being referred to as "broadsword", so it doesn't belong on this disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It can and should comply with MOS:DAB? Whether or not it should is of no importance, unless it is explained, what part of MOS:DAB is relevant here (and I say WP:BRD should be followed, either way). As to Arming Sword not mentioning it being called broadsword... why should it? Why should there be mention of a word, that can, inaccurately, be used to refer to it? Mind you, it is a bit strange to include arming sword, but not longsword and zweihänder ...and just in case: You do know that there are several other issues as well? The most important, IMO, being that Trofobi is forcing the new edit to be active during the discussion, rather than keeping it to the old consensus until it it settled?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The most important is that the encyclopedia be improved. I agree that it would be strange to include arming sword, longsword, or zweihänder, but as it happens none of them are included in the current version, so that represents an improvement to the encyclopedia. Other than the removal of the strangely-included arming sword, I'm not sure what other issues you mean. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Zarlan: It's hard to discuss when you don't even look at what has been changed (6 new links have been added, 5 misleading/outdated links replaced). And then you demand to respect BRD - what is neither guideline nor policy - while at the same time refusing to accept anything from MoS-guideline. Your way to interprete BRD would mean: any little correction or improvement of a page has always first to be discussed against authors, who want to preserve old mistakes... I asked you to discuss much earlier, but you refused. Also you still refuse to point out, which specific information is now lacking and why it would be relevant - and why the completely confused layout/format of your preferred version would be better than the current (democratic 3:1) consensus. --Trofobi (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You make many claims and accusations. Anyone can claim anything, however. You need to be able to back them up. Baseless claims and accusations are worthless. As the sayings go: "If you can't show it you don't know it" or "Put up or shut up".
 * So could you please explain a few things?:
 * What new links have my reverts removed?
 * What misleading/outdated links were replaced, and in what way were they misleading/outdated?
 * Why would you say that I mean that any modification of a page has always first be discussed, rather than it meaning that when you make an edit that is quickly reverted, you should respond by discussing it, rather than just re-reverting it (that re-revert being the potential start of an edit war)? BRD may not be a policy or guideline, but it is a sensible way of going about things, so as to stop edit wars, and make sure that the information on wikipedia-articles are as reliable as possible. Just because it's not a policy or guideline, doesn't mean that it isn't good to follow. Surely someone who insists on following a mere guideline, which isn't a policy, cannot argue with that? Also BRD doesn't
 * Show me where you first asked me to discuss the matter.
 * Show me WHAT PART OF MoS IS RELEVANT!?! I have asked you time and again, but you refuse to answer! If you continue to refuse, I'll have to check if there are ways of reporting trolls on wikipedia.
 * Also: Wikipedia is not a democracy! Thus your proposed "vote" is pointless.
 * I can also point out, that while BRD isn't a policy... "Note:"BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring, which is a policy that all editors must follow." - BRD. This seems to indicate that you have, indeed, broken wikipedia policy, due to insisting on your being right, rather than trying to discuss the matter.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of trying to discuss... Are you perhaps referring to this?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Broadsword_%28disambiguation%29&diff=prev&oldid=509672436
 * Saying "‎Zarlan pls discuss before reverting to completely confused version again!" does not constitute trying to discuss. It is also rather confused in it's order. First of all, if you make an edit (of whatever size) that gets reverted, and then immediately reverting it back to your edit is against wikipedia policy, as I have show above. Secondly, you are the one that should begin discussing (and I mean discussing, not telling me to discuss before making further edits. Also note that anything that is merely in edit summaries doesn't count as a discussion). In fact, given the policy noted above, that is pretty much the best you can do. My re-reverting of your re-revert is almost not a problem, as "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring.". It was hardly the best way to deal with things, sure, but it was at least somewhat in accordance with proper wikipedia practice.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Now this is really getting bizarre. First you ask for consensus, then you don't want it. You are wanting others to obey guidelines/principles/else, but you don't want to obey them yourself. You don't want democracy, but you also don't want to accept "authorities". You reverted edits while you didn't even read what was changed. You took part editing this page firstly on 1 October 2011‎ but you never cared about the " [dubious – discuss] " issues - and now you claim this status as "consensus". One mistake that I clearly made is labelling an edit of mine as "rev" although it was no revert at all, but an elaborate improvement. But do you really want to go on only discussing sidelines? Once again:
 * What exact changes do you suggest for the page? Which lines would you like to insert/remove? Which different wording would you prefer? Do you really want to go back to this version and have it staying like this? --Trofobi (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In what way do I not want consensus?
 * I don't want to obey guidelines/policies/whatever? Please explain what part of what policy or guideline I am not following or wanting to follow ...because so far you haven't. You claim that this doesn't follow WP:MOS:DAB, but you refuse to explain how it fails to follow it. (and I'd say that policies against edit warring and WP:BRD, which you have gone against, have a rather higher priority than issues of writing style)
 * As to "dubious – discuss"... how does that make it less consensus?
 * That edit wasn't misslabeled. It may be technically not a revert, but that is arguing that we should follow the letter of the law, so as to go against the spirit of it, so I don't accept that. The letter of it, exists to serve the spirit of it. The reason for the rules are the more important issue.
 * I am not the one that is trying to change the page. You are. Thus you are the one that needs to motivate your edits, which you have consistently refused to do.
 * Also, you still haven't answered ANY of the questions above.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

For further reading: Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance&oldid=512268224#Talk:Broadsword (disambiguation)#August 2012 cleanup and my talk page... --Trofobi (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please not that "Do not continue your discussion in detail here (ZarlanTheGreen:that is, at the Wikiquette Assistance discussion); instead, continue discussing it at its original location - as long as your request contains a link to the relevant discussions it will be seen.", so further discussion about the article should be conducted here. Discussion specifically concerning the conduct of the editors involved in this specific dispute is what should be discussed at the Wikiquette assistance page ...or at least that is the impression I get.
 * Also, why do you link to a specific version of the Wikiquette assistance page? Here is a proper link: Wikiquette_assistance--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well Wikiquette_assistance has been removed. Apparently people thought it did more harm than good. Not much had, had time to happen, concerning the activities on this page.
 * Well, it's on here now: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I've noticed an inaccuracy I have failed to address. Above JHunterJ has said (to me) "I agree that it would be strange to include arming sword, longsword, or zweihänder". This shows a misunderstanding of what I have said. I said "Mind you, it is a bit strange to include arming sword, but not longsword and zweihänder". I.e. if one includes arming sword, it is strange not to include longsword and zweihänder as well. This is because all those sword types are called broadswords. By the same people, for the same reason and with the same origin to the custom of calling them that. While it is highly inaccurate to call them that, it is nevertheless something that they are commonly called (and thus should be included in the article).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a misunderstanding of what you had said. If you misspoke before and would like to rephrase now, that's fine. Since all those articles didn't indicate any ambiguity with "broadsword", they aren't included here. If they are commonly referred to as broadsword, that information (with citations as needed for consensus) should indeed be included in those articles first, and once it's in those articles, then they would be listed here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't misspeak. I said "it is a bit strange to include arming sword, but not longsword and zweihänder". Nowhere in that, does it, in any way, imply that either sword type shouldn't be included. A simple misunderstanding is fair enough. It was a quite understandable thing to misunderstand, and everyone makes mistakes now and then. I certainly do, and I have never met anyone else who doesn't.
 * That aside, why should the articles for arming sword, longsword et etc, have to include a mention of them often being referred to as broadsword?
 * ...and more importantly:
 * Why should the exact contents the pages linked, be relevant to a disambiguation page?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Because that's the only "reference" for ambiguity that we use, and without it some editors will make some disambiguation pages overly long lists of tangentially related topics. MOS:DABMENTION. Now, why shouldn't there be some objective way to determine what goes into a disambiguation page? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * MOS:DABMENTION deals with how to deal with topics that do not have an article of its own. Arming swords and all other topics mentioned here, have articles of their own, so I don't see how MOS:DABMENTION could be, in any way, relevant. It doesn't make any mention of what is necessary, or even preferable, for inclusion in a disambiguation page. Only how to include a certain category of things.
 * You ask why there shouldn't be some objective way to determine what goes into a disambiguation page, but that is a nonsensical question. No one has claim that there shouldn't. One can argue about what ways we should, or shouldn't use, but who's argued that we shouldn't have some way to determine?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if a solution to this situation might be accomplished by making Broadsword, now a redirect to a particular variety of sword so known, a concept article instead. Would it be possible to create a worthwhile stub that would give an overview of all types of swords that might be known as broadswords, allowing navigation from that article directly to the articles on the specific varieties? Then all the swords (except the primary topic) would be off the dab page, which would be just for navigation to things called Broadsword that are not actually swords.-- Shelf Skewed   Talk  03:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting suggestion. I wasn't familiar with concept articles (well, I've read several of them, but...). I don't think it's appropriate, here, though ...and to clarify: Broadsword is a redirect to the sword type that can, properly, be called such.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Whenever I see an assertion that something is "commonly, but incorrectly" called by a certain name, my radar goes off. Either it is commonly called by that name, or it isn't; whether it is "correct" or not is besides the point.  That is like saying that "acetylsalicylic acid is commonly but incorrectly called 'Aspirin'" -- if something is called by a particular name often enough, that becomes a "correct" name for the thing.  The root of the problem here is that, as with any other fact that is proposed to be included in the encyclopedia, the common usage of a name is something that has to be able to be documented by reference to reliable sources; and, if there is any doubt, those sources have to be identified in the article about the topic in question.  Therefore, if you believe that a particular type of widget is commonly referred to as a "zoobie," one would expect this common usage to be mentioned in the "widget" article with a citation to one or more reliable sources that verify that this usage actually is common.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Acetylsalicylic acid is never incorrectly called aspirin. It is correctly called aspirin. It is an accurate brand name for acetylsalicylic acid. Using it to refer to acetylsalicylic acid, is thus correct, if not quite as precise. As to sources: That's fine. I strongly approve of using reliable sources. Why does it have to be in the article linked to, however? Especially when you have several articles that are called something, for the exact same reason. A fact that is utterly pointless to mention for someone reading about the topic itself, but may be usefull for someone who looks up the term itself.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Creating a separate topic article would reinvent the wheel. This material is already covered in Classification of swords. We can section redirect there, and add whatever other disambiguating materials are needed, with an appropriate hatnote. Alternatively, we can just change the hatnote at Basket-hilted sword to indicate that other swords known as broadswords are discussed in Classification of swords. bd2412 T 18:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually you seem a bit confused as to what is required. If it is already covered in Classification of swords (as it is, and it is indeed an appropriate place for it), then what they say can be included here. It's as simple as that.
 * Clearly the page needs some work, as it argues for it being correctly used for two handed swords, while any mention of "broadsword" as a term (rather than speaking of a "broad" "sword", i.e. a sword that is broad) to refer to anything other than a Broadsword is inaccurate and they were never called thus in the periods that they were used. Much of this is supported by saying that broad, great, large and big "are all synonyms", but that is certainly WP:OR and probably WP:SYNTH. Just because they can be synonymous, doesn't mean that a mention of great sword is the same as a mention of broad sword (and a mention of broad sword, isn't necessarily a usage of "broadsword" as a term, but simply using the word broad as an adjective) ...but that is stuff to take up at Classification of swords, rather than here.
 * Classification of swords Clearly mentions "A cutting sword with a broad blade" (regardless of it being for one or two hands), thus meaning that Arming Sword, Zweihänder, Katzbalger, Longsword and many other sword types, may be added to this page ...though adding all of them individually, may not be the best idea. Something like "Any cutting sword that is broader than a rapier", would no doubt be better ...along with the information that this is a modern use, which wasn't used historically. Note that this would not mean that Arming Sword would be removed, but rather that it would be replaced with a broader mention, which includes arming swords--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ...oh and BTW: Thank for pointing out that it's covered in Classification of swords. That is quite helpful.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reading a bit more, I note that it says "It must be noted, that the term broadsword was never used historically to describe the one-handed arming sword or short-sword. The short-sword was wrongly labeled a broadsword by antiquarians as the medieval swords were similar in blade width to the military swords of the day (that were also sometimes labeled as broadswords) and broader than the dueling swords and ceremonial dress swords.". Thus Arming swords are explicitly mentioned :) --ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly, having a link on this disambiguation page to that article section would be appropriate, since the article broadly discusses historic uses of the term, broadsword. bd2412  T 21:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the redirect Broadsword would be better redirected there than to Basket-hilted sword. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely. --Trofobi (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Basket-hilted sword is the thing that can accurately be called a broadsword. Even if you accept the argument that longswords and Zweihanders could be called thus, it's still Basket-hilted swords that are broadswords.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole point of your earlier goal of putting dao and arming swords on this dab is that they are also broadswords -- claims of "accuracy" will need to gain acceptance in popular usage (so that people stop calling daos broadswords, for instance). Our navigation is about what can "be called thus". OTOH, if basket-hilted sword is what is usually sought by readers looking for "broadsword", then the current arrangement is the proper one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that claims of accuracy need to gain acceptance in popular usage, to be accurate. However, to be included here, the important issue is if it is commonly referred to as broadsword, and nothing else. That's true and I have never claimed otherwise.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a new question: to which topic should the title "Broadsword" lead the user? Your answer is based on what thing you say can be accurately called a broadsword. Wikipedia's answer is what thing does the readership primarily expect to find under an encyclopedia article titled "Broadsword"? Is that the topic covered by the Basket-hilted sword (and the redirect is accurate)? Or is it the topic in Classification of swords (and the redirect should be changed)? Or neither (and the disambiguation page should be moved to the base name)? The older question of what can be included here (on the disambiguation page) is indeed what is commonly referred to as "Broadsword" (and something else: according to Wikipedia). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question. BTW, I do believe that this DAB used to be "Broadsword", rather than a DAB.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes:
 * move dab from base name
 * convert base name to article
 * base name to "Basket-hilted sword" (once merged with Schiavona)
 * -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard
Hi! I am a dispute resolution volunteer at the [Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard]] where this conflict is being discussed. See Dispute resolution noticeboard. Being a DRN volunteer does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have a fair amount of experience helping other people to resolve their disputes.

It is perfectly OK to continue discussing things here (I would like nothing better to be told that everyone has reached an agreement and that the services of DRN are not needed) but I would ask everyone to slow down, calm down, and avoid anything that is even slightly close to being a personal comment about another editor while we are working together to reach a resolution. I notice that this has been at WP:WQA. Not to put down anyone who participates there, but WP:DRN has a much higher success rate. One reason for this is that at DRN we talk about article content and we do not allow discussion of user conduct. In other words, talk about the article and don't talk about other editors (you can still talk about other editors here, but I advise waiting to see how the DRN case goes). So basically what I am asking is this; More Light and Less Heat. Being calm, cool and logical really helps you to make your point at DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)