Talk:Waster

Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Martial arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts

Edits for non-stub

I have expanded the article somewhat in hopes of moving it away from the 'stub' class. More information will follow when time permits, along with more citation if desired. Xiliquiern 16:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are always desired. Carom 16:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further Edits

I have added an image and more information to the use section and am not finished quite yet. More information will be added on the general groups (historic martial art reconstruction) who use them, and the manner of use (progression in training from fundamentals to light sparring, to contact, moving on to steel weapons). Also, more about using steel in conjuction with the wasters for more realistic practice.

I would like someone not so aquainted with the concepts and subject to post from citation requests. Xiliquiern 14:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation

Just to be clear- it's way-ster, not wah-ster, right? Old words, or words taken from specialized disciplines, can occasionally be counter-intuitive like that. --Toptomcat 01:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, as far as I know in that I've never heard it pronounced any other way. Think waste + r, or like you said, way-ster.-- Xiliquiern 01:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That probably ought to be put somewhere in the article. I'd do it, but I'm unfamiliar with phonetic notation. -Toptomcat 03:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little less than familiar with it myself, but have added the IPA pronunciation to the article as best I can. --Xiliquiern 04:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Much improved, promoted to B-class, although quite a way from any further upgrade (as it were). Carom 23:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Assistance

Does anyone know where the wooden practice weapons were created with the intent of eventually being “wasted", hence the term waster concept originates? I have found several sources that state this, but do not provide any form of primary source. Needless to say, its a little frustrating, as I would love to have this particular statement sourced and cited. -- Xiliquiern 02:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An examination of the etymology of waste seems to suggest that the statement is correct. If you have access to the OED, you might check that, as it usually gives a fairly complete etymology. Carom 00:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...the things I never knew existed. Thank a lot! I went ahead and cited that as a source - more information and specifics might be added later, but for now I think that's plenty. Thanks again! -- Xiliquiern 01:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It would be nice to discover the origin of the statement itself, although I suspect it's one of those things that appears so obvious that no-one bothers to cite their source when reproducing it. Carom 01:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that's the sort of thing exactly. Nonetheless, this will certainly be ample. -- Xiliquiern 02:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waster description.

the article states that a waster is lighter then a metal sword. I recall seeing a historical show in wich the host stated that the medieval waster for a long sword was in actuality twice the weight of a real sword in order to build up the muscles. Bloodkith (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wasters weren't only for practice

The Roman Legionaires used their wasters to break up riots. The idea being less civilians would be killed by the use of wooden weapons. Khallus Maximus (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Waster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]