Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Medieval Weaponry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.
The resulting WikiProject was not created
Description
[edit]ProjectDescription Ork Rule (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]Please specify whether or not you would join the project.
Discussion
[edit]Wikiproject Medieval Weaponry has now been proposed! I have an essay on the subject, so I was thinking we could convert the essay into a set of pages on Wikipedia—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ork Rule (talk • contribs) 14:31, January 27, 2010
- As you are new to wikipedia, I would suggest joining and working via the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force -Optigan13 (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you define medieval weaponry? 76.66.193.224 (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be better if there were a WP:WikiProject Weaponry first... to cover non-military weapon situations. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I merge of WP:Firearms to include hnting knives and so forth. Buggie111 (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with a weaponry project is that anything can be used as weapon. I'm not talking about guns, swords, missiles, etc; I'm referring to things that you probably do not think of as weapons but have been adopted for use as weapons in the past by people who have no specifically designed weapons; things like cars, rocks, fecal matter, bottles, etc. Given this fact then how exactly would you narrow down a weaponry project's scope to be wide enough to justify a whole new project without narrowing the field down to the point where the material would already be covered by milhist's weaponry task force for things designed specifically to be weapons (guns, swords, etc)? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Milhist's taskforce doesn't cover weapons that are not used by militaries. There are plenty of police weapons that aren't used militarily, or are specifically banned by various international treaties. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with a weaponry project is that anything can be used as weapon. I'm not talking about guns, swords, missiles, etc; I'm referring to things that you probably do not think of as weapons but have been adopted for use as weapons in the past by people who have no specifically designed weapons; things like cars, rocks, fecal matter, bottles, etc. Given this fact then how exactly would you narrow down a weaponry project's scope to be wide enough to justify a whole new project without narrowing the field down to the point where the material would already be covered by milhist's weaponry task force for things designed specifically to be weapons (guns, swords, etc)? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I merge of WP:Firearms to include hnting knives and so forth. Buggie111 (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I have been looking down the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force of users with their various areas of interest, and ask: what weaponry is there which isn't covered here? Or which isn't only one step away from those covered here? Someone has mentioned weapons used in non-military situations, however if I think of sports, various swords, dueling pistols and so on and so forth have a military application covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force, and in terms of law enforcement, CS spray/PAVA spray, baton and TASER all have military applications or are derived from military stock like tear gas. There must surely be a military application of such things somewhere. Hunting knives? WP:SPORT has that covered, and the task force can cover any knives that have both hunting and military uses. As TomStar81 has also pointed out, the various bric-a-brac that could be used as a weapon would never in its right mind actually have a weapon-wikiproject tag. Just my thoughts. S.G.(GH) ping! 08:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a WP:GUNS, but according to your analysis, that should not exist, since it should just be folded into WPMILHIST's task force. As for sport, there've been discussions there about the appropriateness of handling Roman gladiatorial combat, which definitely use weapons specifically designed for the sport and not used for military combat. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do quite a bit around medieval weaponry and it is an area where there is work to do. I don't think we need an "essay" on medieval weapons - aren't essays against MOS?- what we need is well referenced work to raise the quality of some of the articles we have and to fill gaps. If this project would provide that, I'll sign up. If not, however, I don't think it is worth it. Which leads to a question would be what would this project add?Monstrelet (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or at the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.