Talk:Vorpal sword (Dungeons & Dragons)

Why the split?
I strongly object to this article's existence. The reason "vorpal sword" exists in the first place is because of the prominence in popular culture it has attained due to D&D etc. Case in point, there is no article on mome raths. I see no reason not to merge this with vorpal sword, that is, to restore the previous situation. Not only is this article weak; it weakens the original article, and therefore makes no more sense than cutting off a person's leg so it can walk around on its own. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It could easily enough be merged into Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the inclusion of the vorpal sword in that article. However, I do not think there is a good reason the original article should lack this content. If we were publishing a book about Carroll and a book about D&D, the division would make sense. But the encyclopedia entry "vorpal sword" should include all notable information on the topic. And if the entirety of an article (this one) is within the scope of another (vorpal sword), the former need not exist (unless the total volume is too great, as in "History of..." splits). MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I'd rather this were reversed too. Making Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) a dumping ground for material which is basically sourcebook reiteration (the current content) is a bad idea. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)