Talk:Sword making

Joseph
I'm not sure what all you added, but the article seems pretty good. There were a couple of times I wasn't sure what was going on due to wording. If I don't use it in everyday talk I probably don't know it but that's just me. Also, there were a couple of grammatical errors that I noticed so I would read over the article again just to make sure. Is there any more information on modern sword making?Kycarp20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Old discussions
There is, I believe, and excellent article at anvilfire.com that covers this rather well. I don't have time to research the link. Erraunt 19:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC) OK, I had time. Erraunt 20:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I can not say much on an expert, but I don't think this should be fused with Swordsmith, but rather keep a link well visible. I had a little trouble finding this one a second time. User:Magicwings7 20:50, 1 May 2007 P.S. ...wait, how long has that idea been up?


 * I think it should be merged. It might confuse people when looking for one subject by the name of the other. (A Guest; 10:27, 27 June 2007)

Grammar
In Sharpening, shouldn't the second paragraph say that the long edges "comprise" (or better yet, "constitute") the cutting component, instead of saying that those edges "compromise" the cutting component? Neil (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have changed it. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Link error ?
Why is a serious subject such as "A Metallurgical History of Ancient Sword Making" currently redirected to "Highlander (film)", a movie-based site??? Dr.Bastedo (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for noting this, I've opened up a discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 25. Wizard191 (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Balanced?
"Finally, it should be balanced along its length so that it can be easily wielded, although many functional swords are purposefully unbalanced." - as far as I am aware, this is an example of how the idea of 'balanced' swords is misunderstood or improperly explained. 'Balanced' means the weight is distributed well for its intended purpose (more accurately called 'well-balanced'), and so 'purposefully unbalanced' is an oxymoron. Often, people seem to think that a 'balanced' sword should have a balance point exactly on its hilt (general rule of thumb for a kitchen knife, not a sword), or that a sword should have a balance point at its exact middle (which is not at all desirable for most functional swords.) Like most aspects of swordsmithing, balance is a trade-off of desired properties. A more evenly 'balanced' sword will generally strike faster... and with less force.

Japanese Katana; Forging
In this section it was written that; "This [tamahagane] allows the sword to have... the flexibility to take blows without breaking". I think that using the term "flexibility" is misleading because in the context of a materiel it usually means "be capable of warping or bending and then reverting to shape." and from what I have gathered, traditionally made katanas can only bend slightly and return to their original position compared to many other steel swords. Since this had no citations, I took the liberty to replace "the flexibility to take blows without breaking" with "to cause the sword to tend to bend rather than flex under stress". The softer more malleable steel in the sword's spine supports this claim, but I do not know of a reliable source for me to cite this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.163.56.38 (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete or Merge
I would suggest that this page is either deleted and a redirect created or merged with ‘Bladesmith’

It contains very little original information that is not covered by other pages, and excessive detail on Japanese sword manufacture, which has its own page.

Any thoughts? Worcester1264 (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Not all swords were made by bladesmiths. Village blacksmiths also made swords, especially in societies where every male was expected to be a warrior. Swords are expensive & not everyone could afford a specialist bladesmith, especially if warfare was not your main occupation or someone rich was not paying.144.139.103.173 (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, and I agree with all your points. My suggestion of a redirect to 'Bladesmith' is simply because that is a better written and referenced page, which states much of the same information.
 * However my issue is with this specific page- I feel that the topic of sword manufacture cannot be dealt with sufficiently in one page, and is better dealt with by a subsection within each page about the style of manufacture- the Gladius and Katana pages have good examples of what I mean.
 * If that is not possible, then perhaps this page could be changed to be more specific- 'Historical techniques of blade manufacture" could be an example which would make it easier to help this article.
 * My thought remains though that the whole article and title in it's current form is superfluous and should be deleted. Worcester1264 (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)