Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Blades

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Blades and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

This page was nominated for deletion on 2 March 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.

New Members

Mike, I don't know what kind of time I can commit to this project (I find myself a bit oversubscribed in this season of my life), and I've got a lot to learn about writing articles. With your permission, however, I'd like to help when I can. I would be motivated to do articles on Chris Reeve, Bob Lum, Scott Sawby, and work many existing articles. Let me know how I can help and collaborate. Jumpcoach (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here! Just start editing away, your CRK article was really good for a first attempt! I've been planning articles on Walker, Lum, Terzuola, Centofante, Hinderer and a few others...but I seem to get pulled in a bunch of different directions, myself. Thanks for joining the project...and don't wait for my permission...be Bold!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be very interested in working on Chris Reeve and Bob Lum articles. --Kennethsime (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This group sounds like a good collaboration, and although my specialty is in firearms articles, I thought my C/K Dragon article came out well and would enjoy making more CRKT knife articles under this project, if it's okay with you gents. Just tell me what I should do, I love editing Wikipedia. Akyoyo94 (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have you! One of these days I have to put the task list together, keep doing what you've been doing!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I'm new to this project but I've been keeping an eye on many articles within the scope of this project for a long time. Mike, I hope you don't mind, I've moved the discussion you had at the top of the page right to the top of this section, so that the contents list shows up first, and renamed the section "New Members" so anyone who wants to talk about what they're working on, can. --Mistsrider (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this project is still active, but I was looking at List of blade materials and thought I could improve the layout a bit. I used to edit WP quite a bit, but don't have a lot of time anymore. You'll be seeing me! --Kennethsime (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to add To-Do box and WP: shorcuts

Not to leave stuff half-finished, but I've hit a bit of a wall trying to add the shortcuts and To-Do template, basing them off the code for WP:GUNS. I got the template basically down, but I can't get it to actually show the articles in the "Images" section, no idea why. I got the "Shortcuts" box to show, but not 100% sure how to actually establish the shortcuts. I think it explains it in the link. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To create the shortcuts you just need to go and create a page with those names, and redirect them to here. The reason the images section isn't showing up is because it is not standard to that template. The WP:GUNS version was created for our project by starting with the basic template, and then adding the desired section. I believe if you want to do the same, you just need to create a template page, take the basic template, and add the desired sections following the same general format.--LWF (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got the lines to show up on the To-Do. Easiest way was just to use the WP:GUNS template, since we do basically the same stuff. I don't think it causes any conflict, and it seems smarter than just creating a new template. That won't cause any conflicts in coding between the two WPs, will it? So far as shortcuts, I'm waiting until I get an answer back from the Project originator as to how best to label the project and alternate shortcuts, but I understand the basic process. Just tossed up the redlink box just to show we're working towards getting Shortcuts. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It won't cause any coding problems. And to Mike, good luck with this project, all the best.--LWF (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Asian machete-type swords

Hi there. I'm a user who's been doing research on various aspects of Filipino culture for quite some time now, and putting my research findings on Wikipedia. One of my great frustrations is the lack of good source materials on Southeast Asian swords. The major problem I'm encountering is that Island Southeast Asia (That is, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, the Philippines, etc, as opposed to continental Thailand Vietnam etc.) has so many subcultures, and similar weaponry with different names and cultural references, plus, often, a single distinguishing characteristic.

Let me cite my current conundrum for example: So many S.E.A. swords are essentially Machetes. That is, single-edged swords at mostly 20-14 inches in length. But a sword from the Northern Philippines (say, the Talibong) and a sword from the Southern Philippines (say, the Pinuti), both Machete-types are not the same because of cultural and historical differences and some design elements. (The Pinuti, for example, is distinguished by the color it takes when freshly sharpened!)

Now, this is fine so far, as we're dealing with clearly different swords. It gets complicated when you start talking about broader categories. Take the terms Machete, Bolo, Itak, Golok, and Parang, for example. My understanding is that these terms refer to a broad range of swords. What would be called a Machete in the west would be referred to as a Parang in Indonesia, and a Golok in the Philippines. Or... would that be accurate? Would it be accurate to say that Parang is the Indonesian term for Machete, and Golok the Philippine Term? If so, do they deserve their own articles? But even that is easily resolvable. The problem is more confusing than that because in the Philippines there is another, more popular term, Itak, which means the same thing in the same languages. Some say Golok is simply an old term. BUT there are those that say that there's a difference between the two - that the Itak is a pointy-tipped Golok.

AND, the term 'Bolo' is used interchangably with both Itak and Golok.

What makes it worse is that when these swords are commercialized in the west, two swords of essentially the same design are marketed side by side under different names. The big problem here is that western commercial websites are often the only citeable online sources for these weapons.

So at this point I'm thoroughly confused. The Kampilan, Keris, Kalis, Barong, and even the Panabas are okay, but all the Machete-type southeast asian sword articles and future articles, it seems to me, are hopelessly confused.

On top of that, I have to ask... what would be more accurate: "The Pinuti is a type of machete from the southern Philippines" or "The Pinuti is a machete-type sword from the southern Philippines" or "The Pinuti is a machete-like sword from the southern Philippines"

We don't have the sword category types that have been developed by anthropologists for European blades. At least, I don't think so. So are we saying that sword article categories for Southeast Asia (taxonomy/typology) is always going to be a matter of editor's opinion?

HELP! -- Alternativity (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a short-term solution, you could just make Category:Southeast Asian swords and simply categorize them regionally at first. Once that category starts getting unwieldy, folks could start sorting out the subdivision. If there are only limited articles right now, a large regional category should cover it in the meantime. And I suppose SEA long-knives with an agricultural chopping purpose could stay in Category:Machetes until that gets too unwieldy. Do you actually own some of these kinds of knives? It'd be great to get pics uploaded for them. If you've got a goodly number of photos to upload, using WikiCommons is the best way to centralise all those pics and make them accessible. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Activity

Are the people working on this project still active? I was considering added my self to the list of members...Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten a few articles (boot knife and balisword) to fix poor/terrible writing. I could help rewrite some if it may further the ratings of pages. Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! Thanks for helping out. Let me know if you need help with sources or anything.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been adding the Cutlery "tag" to relevant pages (like hatchets)Halofanatic333 (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've always kept an eye independently on cutlery articles though I have never formally joined the project prior to now. I'm adding a section on the main Wikipedia page for people to put common sources up to the Wikipedia standards of citations, and also helpful tools/pages for new members to the project. --Mistsrider (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Carter (bladesmith)

Hello, I revised the article about Murray Carter (bladesmith) after it was deleted. I created the article in 2008 as my first, but recently it was the discussion of people with little info on the subject, resulting in a deletion. Could you be so kind to review the article and give me some pointers for improving it? Maybe you could put the article within the scope of your wikiproject? Thanks in advance! --RobVandeB (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed your work on the article...thanks Mike! English is not my native language, but I'm learning every time working on Wikipedia. I'd love to learn more and hope to be of service!--RobVandeB (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steel Types

I was wondering if types of steel fall under our wing? Things like VG-10 or S30V.Halofanatic333 (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To a degree, that can be a mixed bag as there are some steels used very little by very few makers and others that are more mainstream.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 12:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well many steels were developed for the use in knives. Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is not a true statement. Most of the steel used in the making of knives, is made primarily for other purposes. In talking with numerous makers over the years, there are actually many steels that would be perfect for knife making, but are not available in flat sheets or bars. S30V was specifically designed as a bladesteel and while other steels dominate the custom and production knife markets, you'll often find they were developed for a different purpose.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think that we could make an article about steels used in knife making (Ie: 440, 420, 1095, etc.)?Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it if you like, I think the Spyderco article has a good overview of their steels, with references to back up the properties, etc. Call it Blade steel, perhaps?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I'll start on it either later tonight or tomorrow morning.Halofanatic333 (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and in the process, I'll probably move the info to the new article from the spyderco one. Halofanatic333 (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to be mindful if Spydie is using anything proprietery that may not belong in a general article on blade steel. If they are the only one using it, it would make more sense to just remain in their article. I think the Tool Steel article has some useful information and sources, as do pieces on ATS-34, BG-42, S30V, etc. Hit my talk page if you need any help; I'm pretty busy this week with the gym and fights coming up, but I'll do what I can to help you out.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave proprietery stuff there. I made add it to the Blade Steel though. Halofanatic333 (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far I've been working on just stainless steel. I feel like I'm "over-citing." Check out the WIP at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Halofanatic333/Blade_Steel_draft#Stainless_Steel Halofanatic333 (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't make any changes over the weekend, but what do you think so far? Halofanatic333 (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article. Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, I don't think it's overcited. I think a summarization of the information could really be added to the knife page; it drives me crazy how the users there make all sorts of wild claims towards blade steel. You may be warned though, someone may eventually suggest a merge edit with either "Blade" or "Knife". --Mistsrider (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and heads up, however I believe it has it's own place. Hopefully some of you guys can help as well.Halofanatic333 (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

I tried to make one for the project, but can't quite figure it out. This is the project that I participate the most in, and I really want a userbox for it. Anyone up to it?Halofanatic333 (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try WP:UBX? --Mistsrider (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, but it still confused me to an extent.Halofanatic333 (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of knife discussion forums

Hi, just added the article List of knife discussion forums, it is in need of expansion. If you fellows know of more knife discussion forums, go ahead and add them. This list will create a central location for knife discussion groups and allow end-users a quick way to navigate to discuss the topic of knives. Thank you. Zabanio (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knife collecting

I have started a very basic article. My collecting focus is primarily: military knives, Emerson knives, automatics, and custom knives. If any of you experts have a background in any of the other fields, please help out and add your own realms of expertise. Thanks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical vs Combat vs Fighting

We have 2 options here, do we create separate articles for Tactical knife and Fighting knife or do we use Combat knife as a "catchall" with sections detailing the differences?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Created "fighting knife" as a separate category, and transferred "tactical knife" to that section. The slow but sure transformation of the "fighting knife" from a dedicated design to one designed for both fighting and utility purposes has definitely blurred the distinction between the former and the "tactical knife". However, a "combat knife" is really a subcategory of "fighting knife", as it is designed for military use.Dellant (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silverware

I'm interested in silverware, including pastry forks, caddy spoons, etc., but I get the impression that this WikiProject is intended more for knives and daggers? Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons!?

Cutlery has basically the same meaning as utensil. Tools used for eating/preparing food. How you get weapons into that, I simply cannot understand.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rapier

On Talk:Rapier: «"WikiProject Cutlery, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of knives, swords, and blades"; this would seem relevant to this article as it is to other articles on types of sword.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware what cutlery means? Swords cannot be called cutlery, by any stretch of the imagination. Since when are rapiers used to eat, or cook, food?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WP Cutlery's scope is not restricted to the meaning of the single word "cutlery"; "WikiProject Cutlery, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of knives, swords, and blades"--Johnsoniensis (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)»[reply]

Zarlan has twice removed the WP Cutlery banner from Talk:Rapier; also once from Talk:Dao (sword) and Talk:Classification of swords.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I have. Please note the section right above this one, for the reason why.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-member of this project you should accept the definition decided on by the project members which includes "bladed weapons".--Johnsoniensis (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, most certainly not!

I will not accept such arrogant and snobbish nonsense.

I am a person, and as such I am free to argue against the definition. Being a member of the project, or even of Wikipedia, is not a requirement for me to do so ...and there is nothing and no one, anywhere, that has the right to force me to accept any decision of the project or any other group or idividual.

Now you can either cease your incivility and try to make some actual arguments, or you can go elsewhere.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...also: I looked at the list of members. I don't recognize a single name. I have plenty of sword articles in my watchlist, but I haven't seen a single one of those members edit any of them (be it in the article itself, or the talk page).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ZarlanTheGreen: Grow up, dude. The battleground mentality you show on all articles you "contribute" to, trying to force your views on everyone else, doesn't impress anyone. Thomas.W ^talk 20:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and trolling went out of fashion in the 1990s. So that doesn't impress anyone either. Thomas.W ^talk 20:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation of a battleground mentality on the articles I contribute to is both utterly baseless and utterly irrelevant. The only contributions relevant to this discussion are the ones I've made here, and on the pages where I've removed the WP Cutlery banner. Talk of any other contributions are purely ad hominems ...and your accusation of trolling is a strong and blatant assumption of bad faith. Such accusations are disruptive to discussion.

Now if you would stop making accusations of bad faith or tone, and actually deal with the substance of what is said and actually deal with my arguments, rather than the person making them...--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it troubling that my trying to convince people and my trying to argue for certain things, is labelled as "trying to force my views on" people. Especially when it is done in defence of a person who does think, that they have the authority to force their view on me ...and who thinks that you have no say in this matter, in any case (as I note that you're not listed as a member of this project).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ZarlanTheGreen: What arguments? The only argument you've presented is that according to your opinion "cutlery" is the wrong word. ′Well, as you ought to have noticed others don't agree with you, and there are more people against you than for you, so learn to live with it. Because any further edit-warring, on Rapier or elsewhere, is going to get you in trouble. Thomas.W ^talk 21:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you using the ping template? *confused*

"The only argument you've presented is that according to your opinion "cutlery" is the wrong word."

My opinion? Check any dictionary or encyclopaedia, and they will confirm what I say ...and I cited it from cutlery, which I also linked to). To claim that I merely presented my, personal, opinion, is nonsense.

"Well, as you ought to have noticed others don't agree with you"

So what? There does not exist any issue that every single human on the planet agrees on. Besides, argument from popularity is not a valid argument. It is not the number of people who hold a position that makes it true or false.

"Because any further edit-warring, on Rapier or elsewhere, is going to get you in trouble"

What edit warring?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For purpose of the project, we chose the name "cutlery". I think I originally wanted to call it "Blades", but someone thought that had more of a negative connotation. Basically we cover swords, knives and tools or weapons with a cutting edge. Sometimes we get involved with topics related to metallurgy.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Blades" would work perfectly for covering such topics (negative connotations? WTF!?). Utensils would not ...and utensils and cutlery mean the same thing: Tools used to eat or cook food. A fork is a perfect example of cutlery, as is a spoon. A sword, however, is not. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Especially something like a rapier.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't feel it had a negative connotation, someone else did about 7 or 8 years ago when it came up. If you'll notice WP:BLADES and WP:KNIVES are shortcuts to the project. Its just a name, get over it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Names have meaning. The name of a Wikiproject implies that it is about what its name is ...and if a page is tagged with a Wikiproject, it implies that the article is about what that name is, as well. When was the last time you ate food with a rapier? When was the last time you heard of someone grilling, using a rapier as a spit? Never.

If you have a Wikiproject about bats, and it's called "Wikiproject Hybrid-Cars", then that's simply not right. How is this any different?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But to the bigger issue of swords, those are generally worked on by the Military History Project folks, WP:FIREARMS is a subset of that one and WP:BLADES grew out of WP:FIREARMS. If it has a blade or stabs, slices or cuts we try to help out.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"But to the bigger issue of swords, those are generally worked on by the Military History Project folks"

...as is quite appropriate.

"and WP:BLADES grew out of WP:FIREARMS. If it has a blade or stabs, slices or cuts we try to help out"

Then why on earth is it named cutlery?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I told you why, earlier. Now you are just acting like a troll.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I told you why, earlier

...

This is a different context and also...

No.

No you didn't.

You answered why you didn't chose "blade", but that doesn't really answer how or why you ended up with "cutlery", now does it?

You never gave an answer as to why you chose to give the project a name that indicates that it is about eating and cooking tools, such as forks, spoons and ladles.

"Now you are just acting like a troll."

No I am not. Just because you don't understand certain normal behaviours, of discussion, doesn't mean that I am acting like a troll. I don't like how you are quick to call people trolls.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to at least give the illusion of not being disruptive, request that the name be changed to BLADES, I know I would be for it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My statements here have been clear, in that having a blade (be it a tool, utensil or weapon) focus and the name "cutlery" is inconsistent, misleading, confused and... well, nonsensical, to be honest.

I was not aware that I was required to make a formal request, explicitly stating what I am obviously arguing for. Okay, fine. By all means, please do tell me how I am supposed to make the request. Is there any special template I need to use?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to sit here and parse words for you. You asked why it had this name, I told you that another editor suggested cutlery would be less aggressive. He was probably British, they get scared at the silliest things anymore. I was newer at the time and went along with it because I saw the reactions of non-Americans on wiki firsthand when exposed to an article about machineguns, knives, etc and was tired of getting spammed by them. But, yeah I still wanted to call it blades. So ask me another time and you'll get the same answer. You seem to like reading your own words. Now if it were easy to change the name, I would do it (I actually tried doing it yesterday but it didn't work). You're the one who's ass-hurt by it, take the next step, daredevil, and make it happen. Or keep throwing rocks and showing your ass--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not going to sit here and parse words for you."

Editing Wikipedia is largely based on discussing things, you know?

"He was probably British, they get scared at the silliest things anymore."

Ah, so you don't just insult me, you insult nationalities too, with baseless nonsense.

I can assure you that the British are nowhere near as scared or silly as you seem to think.

"You asked why it had this name, I told you that another editor suggested cutlery would be less aggressive."

No. You said some editor said "blade" would have negative connotations. You made no mention of how "cutlery" came up, who suggested it, or why/how it got accepted.

"I was newer at the time and went along with it"

Okay. So... this was a discussion between two people, was it? Or did most people agree with that certain editor? Well whatever.

Why does it still have the name cutlery?

"You seem to like reading your own words."

Better than not really reading/grasping your own words, or the words of the other party.

"Now if it were easy to change the name, I would do it (I actually tried doing it yesterday but it didn't work)."

...

It's easy. (and I say that, from experience)

Read WP:MOVE. It'll tell you how it's done.

"You're the one who's ass-hurt by it, take the next step, daredevil, and make it happen. Or keep throwing rocks and showing your ass"

...

Accusations of being a troll are okay, if they are made with some semblance of evidence. Insults, however... Why I haven't reported your constant, explicit and blatant incivility, I do not understand.

Make it happen? Should I take that as permission to change the projects name? 'Cause if you say yes, I'll make it happen, straight away.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, dude. If I knew how I would have done it a long time ago.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind I figured it out, thanks for the tip.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change of name

It would be useful if a template "WikiProject Blades" would work the same as template "WikiProject BLADES". Also I think the categories by quality and importance will need to be moved before they show correctly on talk pages.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to rename templates to go directly here, rather than through redirects from WikiProject Cutlery (by going to WikiProject Cutlery, and click at "What links here", under "Tools" in the bar at the left. See Wikipedia:Move#Fix double redirects), which utterly failed and resulted in the template simply vanishing (so I self-reverted). WikiProject BLADES is also a redirect, so Blades would be more appropriate. Why it doesn't work, however, baffles me. You should probably ask about it in some place.

*looks*

Maybe at WP:HELPDESK or, if that doesn't work, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention. Well at least the text that the template shows, is correct.

Still, I'll change cutlery to BLADES as that's at least not cutlery. I'll try to make sure that WikiProject Cutlery is an orphaned article ...and then propose its deletion (which I doubt anyone would oppose, at that point, as it would not be serving any purpose any more ...and clear the way for a group to make a Wikiproject about cutlery, in case such a group appears).

Also, you might want to use the <nowiki> tag or remove the double curly brackets in your mention of WikiProject BLADES.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...

Okay, now it seems that there have been changes to "Blades", that have worked. *confused*--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edited out curly brackets above; problems with categories will I think need the attention of an administrator.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The links to cutlery are pretty much all changed to blades now (there are still some links in user pages, and in peoples comments, which are outside of what other editors are allowed to edit). I wonder why "Blades" didn't work, at first, even though "BLADES" did, but... oh well.

I've looked into the deletion of redirects and... Well it seems like it's better to just leave it (at least until someone wants to make a Wikiproject about cutlery). As to the categories... yeah, you'll probably need admin help with that.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Blades" didn't work because I initially set it to "BLADES" in case I hosed it up. I redirected the templates to "Blades".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the categories should be fixed now, I had to recreate them one by one. Thanks again for helping out with this, had I known it was that easy I would have done it 6 years ago.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm just glad it's fixed ...and that swords are no longer being connected to cutlery.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:TOPS Knives needs work

If anyone likes this brand and wants to help get out an article on it, the novice editor who created Draft:TOPS Knives could use insight. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Braquemard

I came across this page today - and it's a mess, for all sorts of reasons.

WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. I've found a few references to braquemard (AKA braquemart, brackmart), but they're all dictionary stuff. There are articles in French and Russian Wikis, but their rules may be different from those of English Wiki. IMO this type of sword is not notable enough to deserve its own article.
It's a WP:DAB page which attempts to disambiguate between (1) a rare sword, (2) a French slang term unknown in English, and (3) a non-notable band. Gimme a break.
It's a DAB page with references. That's a no-no.

I have good evidence that a braquemard was indeed some sort of mediaeval double-edged shortsword or long knife. I'd like to turn Braquemard into a redirect-to-section to an existing (list?) article, adding the WP:RS stuff that I have into a new small section there - but am unsure as to which destination would be best. {{ping}} me if you have a good idea. Narky Blert (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besh

Brent Beshara wrote a draft about the Besh Wedge. He's compiled a bunch of print sources (listed at the end), but doesn't really have the feel for how to write Wikipedia content -- plus, there's the question of neutrality. Anyone want to have a look at the draft, maybe polish it up a bit, arrange things? Especially since some of you might have these print sources yourselves. Thanks in advance. DS (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katar (dagger) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Katar (dagger) to be moved to Katar. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Pata (sword) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Pata (sword) to be moved to Pata. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.