Talk:Broadsword (disambiguation)

Tibia? If someone doesn't clarify this in the next few days I'm cutting it --Peregrine

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? —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." - Wikipedia:BRD#What_BRD_is.2C_and_is_not. 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. I don't see how 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)