Talk:Swordsmanship: Difference between revisions
→list: agree |
m Two Weapon Fighting |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
I agree with [[User:Dbachmann|dab]]. Just make sure all those articles are in a sane category. If not, it's no waste to create 'list of swordsman' as an article. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 12:31, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC) |
I agree with [[User:Dbachmann|dab]]. Just make sure all those articles are in a sane category. If not, it's no waste to create 'list of swordsman' as an article. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 12:31, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC) |
||
== Two Weapon Fighting == |
|||
this article lacks the idea of havin a sword in each hand |
|||
[[User:Dudtz|Dudtz]] 8/5/05 1:26 Pm EST |
|||
Revision as of 17:27, 5 August 2005
merge?
see Talk:European dueling sword. dab (ᛏ) 16:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
list
the "list of swordsmen" seems a bit arbitrary, without any context. Any fencer may be considered a swordsman, at the very least, the list should be organized by period or tradition. dab (ᛏ) 14:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah that should probably be its own article with at most a link in the see also section of this article. - Taxman Talk 17:19, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
I guess that's true. It is quite arbitrary. I thought I was doing a favor to merge Swordsmen based on suggestions, but now it does seem odd. Please do what you think it should be. - Aree
no, I quite agree with the merge. The list was out of place even before. I'll just remove it for now, we have categories for that (lists only add something if they are sorted or annotated in some way). dab (ᛏ) 09:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with dab. Just make sure all those articles are in a sane category. If not, it's no waste to create 'list of swordsman' as an article. - Taxman Talk 12:31, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Two Weapon Fighting
this article lacks the idea of havin a sword in each hand Dudtz 8/5/05 1:26 Pm EST