Talk:Chain weapon

Untitled 2006 comment
The various chain weapons should all be linked to and/or referenced on this page, but they should not be merged into this page. TonyTheTiger 01:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge: disagree
''Moved comments from article to talk page. -- Gogo Dodo 03:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)''

The text of this article indicates significant differences between these weapons which would be better treated by the dedicated articles (which also need some attention). What about making this a disambiguation page? "Chain weapon" is a rather generic term and could include the European Flail (weapon), not just weapons of Asia. There is a category called "Flail Weapons" that this page is already listed on... does anyone feel that a subcategory of this called "Chain Weapons" is needed? Otherwise, just link each chain weapon article (pardon the pun) with the existing "Flail Weapons" category. Bezapt 06:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with the above. The weapons are distinct from one another and merit individual pages just as do all the various pole-arms and swords on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.88.48 (talk • contribs)
 * I have to also disagree with merging. Most pages that reference a large variety of items or subjects only give a brief description, and do not go into much detail as separate pages do. I say list them and link to a more descriptive page of their own. Also, chain weapon isn't a really good descriptive term, since some do not always use chain. - Hellmark 20:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The meteor hammer should be given its own page simple because it's something out of Kill Bill, and many people will look it up because of Kill Bill.

Agreed, just because it's fairly rare doesn't mean it should be swallowed up. In fact, quite the opposite, one of the strengths of Wikipedia is that one can find detailed info on obscure topics. Why not just merge all the different films into one thread marked "film"? It's far more accurate and user friendly like this. Meteor is also becoming more popular as a skill toy for performance arts, and this means that a lot of those interested in poi/staff/club spinning are going to want to find out specific information about meteors.

Disagree. Strongly. Someone seems intent on merging as many chain weapons as they can into a single article. Why don't they stop being lazy and write something about those weapons in this article -- then use Main Article links at the start of each section. Thus each weapon can maintain a full article devoted to it, while this article can compare and contrast their methods of construction and usage; all of which are sufficiently different as to be individual weapons in their own right. There are actually enough of these weapons that they could even warrant their own category. In chinese martial arts, they're (rather ironically) termed 'soft weapons'. --80.6.88.221 08:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

disagree. it woudl seem to make more sence referenced in meteor hammer. -unjust

--- I disagree with the proposed merging; instead, this article should be extinguished and/or turned into a reference point for these weapons (similar to a Disambiguation page). Chain weapons are the same only on the surface; each culture [which at one point in time employed these weapons] has developed its own style. 200.142.100.230 19:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong Disagree. While I'm not as sure about the need of the Manriki, and Manriki-gusari to be separate articles, the Rope Dart and Meteor Hammer especially have gained enough recognition through popular culture through various movies that even if they weren't considered wholey separate weapons in international wushu competitions, that they'd have enough popular distinction to retain their own articles. Move to combine either add various chain weapons to Category:Flail weapons and eliminate, or create Category:Chain weapons, toss 'em all in, and eliminate Category:Flail weapons. One direction or another, it's going to have a geocentric bias towards Eastern or Western terminology, although Eastern Chain Weapons or "Soft Weapons" already have a sublisting under List of martial arts weapons. --Foryst 17:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

i would also have to disagree with the merge. the fact that they are all flexible is not enough to merge them into a single category. these weapons were all developed in different cultures, for different purposes, and at different times. i would suggest an even broader category, perhaps "flexible weapons" or "flexible melee weapons" that exists to link to these different articles. other weapons such as flails, nunchaku, and whips would also be listed.

Mild disagree. I think a chain weapon page should exist linking to and from all other chain weapons pages. Those pages should probably remain. TonyTheTiger 19:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

While they all have an obvious similarity. The origin and use of these tools varies widely. There is a lot of history surrounding usage that could be added to the Gusari and i'm sure the others also. So i would disagree with the merge. Gryning 11:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge rejected; I've linked those not mentioned directly in the text in a ==See also== section, but the article could probably still use some work. -- nae'blis 20:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)