Talk:List of fictional swords

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 24 July 2018, see discussion.
Keep, 17 January 2011, see discussion.
No consensus, 9 December 2008, see discussion.
Procedural Keep , 24 November 2008, see discussion.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blades, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BladesWikipedia:WikiProject BladesTemplate:WikiProject BladesBlades articles

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Merewhtie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sword, Mythological and Fictional

I like that this article exists, as it is the type of article I can imagine myself finding useful, one day, and I'm sure there are others with similar feelings. But I think it needs to be clearer about its scope. If, for example, it going to include Arthurian swords, why not the sword used by Beowulf?

The swords section in the List of Mythical Objects article (here: [1]) contains information that could easily fit here, but clearly shouldn't be in two places. So boundaries need to be drawn, and a better definition made. If Beowulf's Hrunting would be a good addition here, anyway, and perhaps get people thinking about not only the future of fictional swords and objects, but also the future of their "mythological" counterparts. Scribeoflight (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was that, if it shows up in mythology, it should go under List of Mythical Objects, or under its own article. If it's fictional, as in, it only shows up in a book/movie/tv show/video game, it goes under fictional. If its something like Arthur's sword that shows up in folklore and in video games, the video game one(s) with the video game properties go here, and the folklore one goes under LoMO Vdbhi (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

suggestions on reorganising

a few potential ways of reordering the data:

by mythological set (as is ordered atm)

by archetype (talking swords, swords that are the only swords that can defeat X, swords that can cut anything and never dull, etc).

also: fictional swords used in symbols -- e.g., excalibur appears in the SAS badge, etc.

hmm... how about symbolic swords? e.g., the UK sword of mercy, for example, or the sword of Damocles? would include grass-cutting-sword, which is both mythological (given by susanoo-o to amitsurasu to make amends for insulting her iirc) and real (i.e., grasscutter actually phisically exists and is, iirc, stored in atsutu shrine).

mayhaps a 'swords in mythology and symbolism article', incorporating this list? would have the potential to be more encyclopaedic and less listy? maybe?

</braindump> --Dak (talk)

I've been in favor of either swords in mythology or list of mythological swords articles from the begining of the AFD. Those articles would be far more informative, easy to write, and easy to maintain. Symbolic swords is an intriguing idea, but I think it's outside this scope, as you say many swords that hold symbolic meaning are nonfictional.

As far as organization by archetype, I can see where your brainstorm is going, but to me, that just sounds like fodder for petty argument and potential for original research. I generally prefer categorizations of that type to be done by a source first, and that replicated and expanded upon here. ("E.g. "I'm Dr. EJ Copplepottle, and in my doctoral thesis on swords in fiction, I've come to conclude they can be divided into N groups...")

Fictional swords used in iconography I think should probably be remainedered to the sword's own article. Using it as a categorization just seems a tad backwards. The content doesn't currently exist anyway. Moreover, most of the time, I'm under the impression that symbols containing a sword do so using a sword in the generic form, as a symbol for war, power, control, etc.

Ideas are appreciated. I hope more will come. -Verdatum (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

btw: List_of_mythical_objects#Swords

"as you say many swords that hold symbolic meaning are nonfictional" -- but many are fictional. this list would split them, when -- imo -- they should be listed together.

the more i think about it, the more i don't like this article, so i'll comment on the AfD rather than here.

other than to note that i can't help but notice a few non-swords on the list too. --Dak (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

style

Dear editors--can we please keep the style consistent? I propose swords in ordinary font, no bold, no italics, no quotation marks. The article's layout is already confusing enough, with authors, titles, etc., and no one needs to emphasize that this is about those swords--cause it is about those swords. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other lists and inherent pointlessness

Is merely being listed in some other list of magic pigstickers sufficient "coverage" to include a fictional sword here? How many lines does it require in the Tolkien encyclopedia before we can list it here? How can you get details on a fictional object, apart from what came out of the author's deadline-addled brain? And shouldn't we have more than one source to verify the notability of each of these pointy things? "List of X in fiction" is pointless for all X. It either becomes a (meta-)concordance, or fills up with anime cruft. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N There are clearly third party sources that discuss and analyse fictional items. We can discuss with the community and decide whether "multiple" sources are necessary for each entry, but the point is that merely using the original novel, movie or whatever and saying: SEE!!! LOOKIE!!! LOOKIE!!! THERE WAS A SWORD IN THERE SO I CAN PUT IT ON THIS LIST will result in a nonencyclpeic nightmare in violation of WP:IINFO WP:OR etc etc etc. If some knowedgeable entity has not found the particular sword worthy of commenting upon, why would we want to include it? Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although, if you wish to put the article up for AfD again, you may since the last discussion several years ago ended without consensus. Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'll give it a 3rd nomination, but we Wikipedians *love* listcruft (even though we're terribly lazy at filling in the lists once we've listed our favorite 5; viz, I'm opposed to the existence of the list and I found several items that should have been on it). Lists are easy and fun to make. It'll be relisted twice and then closed again as "no consensus". By your leave, I'll borrow some of your phrasing in my next AfD nomination. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with nearly all of what you just said. Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading the two previous deletion discussions gives lots of good arguments; but the best argument is that the article hasn't improved in two years. Writing up a proper AfD is a task for after supper, I think...--Wtshymanski (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is up, but not looking hopeful. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another failure. OK, if we're keeping this, keep it under the conditions described in the AfD discussion - referenced instances only! No trivia appearance list. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toledo Salamanca

In the Highlander series this sword exist. But I can't find it in the real world. --Porbóllett (talk) 11:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lightsabers

Lightsabers are not swords, people (therefore I removed them). They're literally just laser sticks that are used like swords- because George Lucas needed something more high tech for his futuristic high tech space battle movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdbhi (talk • contribs) 12:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]