Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of magical weapons


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was no consensus leaning towards keep. No compelling explanation of why a category would be better was given and a list seems to be a convenient way of keeping those. Sourcing should not be an issue since many of the linked articles have sourcing. I suggest that those interested in keeping this list help source it. JoshuaZ 21:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

List of magical weapons

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Listcruft. Huge number of magical weapons present in fantasy fiction. Oscarthecat 21:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment going off the criteria suggested, it would be perfectly valid to add all the items listed on this Everquest page. --Oscarthecat 17:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're probably right. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Marasmusine 21:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to go with a keep here. You can conceivably cat this, but the fact remains taht this isn't that big of a list, and it lists these fairly descriptively.  It looks to me to fit within the constraints of WP:LIST, so I'm inclined to not worry. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an indiscriminate collection of info.  These magical weapons could be from books, fairy tales, movies, video games, or anything.  It would make the list huge and difficult to maintain.  Useight 22:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, no reason not to group notable magical weapons from different sources in one place until the list actually gets too big, at which point it could be split. Kappa 22:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unsourced, indiscriminate list. -- Kesh 22:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are almost all blue links Kappa 23:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, rather than deleting it, at least keep the part which is a list of mythological weapons. Kappa 23:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename as List of mythological weapons, per Kappa, and delete the recent fictional ones (and Zeus's lightning). Clarityfiend 23:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Isn't this exactly what a category is for? If a magical weapon is notable, it should have its own page.  Otherwise, this is just a big-ole collection of trivia; magic weapons are common to two whole genres of literature, video games, and television.  Listing all of them seems wildly too broad; it's like "list of fictional elves".  --Haemo 01:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per list of loosely associated items and trivia Corpx 02:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Usefulness is a part of the criteria for lists--this is a fairly selective list of items mostly from very major works, and serves well as orientation and navigation. More information is provided than would be possible in a category.DGG (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG — this is not indiscriminate, as magical weapons are a recurrent theme in folklore and literature of many countries. The list presents more organization and context than a category could (and could include more than it does).  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If we're going to have a navigational aide for magical weapons it should be as a category, not an article. Jay32183 19:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't we tell people what kind of weapon they are and what culture/fictional world they are from? Kappa 23:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems to me that magical weapons are a notable topic, so a list isn't inherently inappropriate or indiscriminate. A category is not ideal because I find it unlikely that every valid magical weapon would merit it's own page.  -Chunky Rice 23:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (should be a category) or merge if conceivable. &mdash; Deckiller 01:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating myself, why shouldn't we tell people what kind of weapon they are and what culture/fictional world they are from? Kappa 07:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The category and opening sentences of each article/section can do that. &mdash; Deckiller 07:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Categories are very good at listing articles alphabetically without any annotation. Lists are good for other ordering types with annotation. Category:Magical weapons in Arthurian legend would be overcategorization, but fits nicely as a section in a list. Have I created listcruft? No, I think the list could be a useful navigation aid. Marasmusine 07:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This (Deckiller's) argument appears to be based on the rather silly idea that people will actually take the time to click on a list of random weird names just to see what they are about. Kappa 09:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you find my thoughts "silly". Anyway, I'm not going to get entrenched in a fundamental disagreement. &mdash; Deckiller 14:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it's an empirical question, but personally when I am faced with a list of obscure names I just click on a couple at random then give up. I guess deletionists are the kind of obsessive people who would go through the whole list - wonder if any of them use dialup. Kappa 20:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This list does not contain appropriate annotation to make it more than a mere navigation aide. There is also a disconnect between random items on the list. There isn't a connection meaningful enough to link the articles beyond the capabilities of a category. People who go through categories and lists basically already know what they're looking for. Some one researching magical weapons will still get what he or she is looking for by going through the category. Jay32183 20:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What is this assertion based on? I think that it is likely that many people simply browse Wikipedia (including lists and categories) without any particular purpose. I know I do. Can you back up your claim that users who look at lists and categories already know what they're looking for? -Chunky Rice 21:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't care what you find you use random article. Other than that, everything on Wikipedia should be written with the assumption that users are looking for something, because not doing that hurts the people who are actually looking for something. If you aren't looking for anything in particular, then what do you care how it is organized? In this case a category is better for people looking for something and it makes no difference to those looking for nothing. The only logical thing to do is delete the list and take advantage of the categories that already exist, Category:Mythological weapons and Category:Fictional weapons. Jay32183 21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense, but I have no idea what you're saying here. There's a pretty big difference between clicking on links that interest you without any particular research goal and clicking "random article."  A person might be interested in magical weapons without being interested in a specific magical weapon.  That's why structured lists are useful, particularly if they have annotation.   -Chunky Rice 21:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't understand what I'm saying. If you had any idea you would never have supported the creation of the list in the first place. This list is not and cannot be meaningfully annotated, because the members of the list have no meaningful connection. Jay32183 23:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to get personal. We're just talking about a Wikipedia article.  I don't understand why a short description of each weapon is so outside the realm of possibility, or what constitutes a "meaningful connection" in your mind. -Chunky Rice 23:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A meaningful connection would be that the items on the list are actually related to each other. You could add a short description but it wouldn't fix the problem. No matter how much text you add, the items on the list are not related to each other. Your argument is based on not knowing the difference between lists and categories. Jay32183 00:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you point me towards the guideline or policy that supports your statement? I don't see anything like that in WP:LIST or WP:CAT or WP:CLS.  I think that would help me see what you are talking about. -Chunky Rice 00:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT. This is a collection of loosely associated topics. Jay32183 01:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying to readers is "Here is a list of loosely associated topics, we won't give you any annotations to distinguish one from another, but feel free to click on titles at random or go through all of them one by one." Kappa 07:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So, how does that make a category appropriate? -Chunky Rice 13:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That question would really be an argument against a category, not for a list. Are you sure you want to make it? Jay32183 18:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (outdent). Aren't you the one who said that this should be a category instead of a list?  All I'm asking is what makes a category superior for this particular topic.  To which I've not really received a satisfactory answer. -Chunky Rice 18:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You have received a satisfactory answer, you just don't care. This is a navigational aide and can only ever be a navigational aide. That what categories are for. Commentary and annotation are not identical concepts. Jay32183 20:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, but in WP:LIST being a navigational aide is one of the express accepted purposes of lists. So why is a category superior?  -Chunky Rice 20:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Kesh, Jay32183, and Deckiller. This list is designed to be a navigation aide, which is better served as the already existing categories Category:Fictional weapons and Category:Mythological weapons. These specific weapons are not related to one another in any meaningful way, and, thus, appear to be a directory of loosely associated topics, which Wikipedia is not. Lack of sourcing is also a problem. bwowen talk•contribs 13:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are some serious flaws with the category system, and due to those flaws, navigation is not better served by them. For example, categories don't exist as integrated structures while lists do.  What I mean by this is that categories don't exist as a page you can actually edit - each topic in a category resides as a tag on another page.  This makes tracking of edits to a category almost impossible.  If an entry disappears, you wouldn't notice it unless you were already very familiar with the cateogry.  If an entry is removed from a list, it shows up in the list's edit history.  Categories can't be watchlisted like lists can, nor can they be used with Related changes (lists are very useful for tracking changes to the articles listed on them).  Maintaining categories is a major pain.  Maintaining lists as navigation aides is much easier.  Lists can be formatted, categories can't.  Lists can be interspersed with images, categories can't.  So please, just drop the category vs. list debate - it belongs on the Village Pump policy forum, not here.  The list and category systems overlap, and each has its own strengths and weaknesses.  The characteristics of one of these systems is no argument for the removal of the other.  Both are established subsystems of Wikipedia.  Removing a page due to your personal bias toward one subsystem or the other is unacceptable.  Just as Wikipedia includes more than one dialect of English (American English, British English, Australian English, etc.), it also includes more than one navigation system.  And that's a good thing.  Live and let live.     Th e Tr ans hu man ist    23:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, It's a helpful article. Magnifier 17:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - this page more than adequately fulfills the criteria required to be a list on Wikipedia. It's both structured and it provides annotations.  I found the list interesting and informative.  Are its items trivial, that is, non-notable?  No.  Excalibur, Narsil, Sting, etc. are quite notable.  Keep in mind that role-playing games have extensive coverage on Wkipedia.  Being a dungeon master myself, I can tell you that lists like this are even more useful for developing a campaign world and running game sessions than the RPG-component articles (monsters, character classes, etc.) that abound on this unconventional encyclopedia.  For example, see rust monster.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    22:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.