Talk:Pistol sword

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
This article or template was once part of WikiProject Final Fantasy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Final Fantasy on Wikipedia. It has since been removed. If you think it should be added again, discuss it on the project talk page.
Removal reason: Don't even want the article to exist		 controller
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Proposed merge with Bayonet due to lack of focus

It seems the move to Pistol Sword did not have the desired effect of indicating that the article should focus on the real world weapon. The article seems to now be a few words on the existence of pistol-swords followed by a list of computer games with weapons combining blades and pistols, whether firing or not. Furthermore, it seems there is insufficient information available on the internet for general users to be able to create a worthwhile article. A military historian, or someone with access to books detailing the weapon might be able to provide more information, but this has not yet occurred and does not seem likely to. I propose the article is merged with Bayonet, perhaps under a section "Permanent bayonets" or "Pistol-swords". The popular culture references are neither necessary nor desirable, as the information would better serve the community if it were in the articles about the games themselves. We don't have a list of every computer game that has an AK47 in it, nor should Pistol Sword contain such a list. I was wrong about the move from Gunblade to Pistol Sword. --Cameron.walsh 02:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree to merge. The article is currently too unbalanced; the pop culture section is too large while the first section, the most important one, is too small. Kariteh 09:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Support merging this stub into the bigger article makes sense also move the trivia and Final fantasy bits back to Gunblade rather than merging in. --Nate1481( t/c) 09:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Gunblade used to redirect Characters of Final Fantasy VIII#Cast creation and influences because Gunblades were not notable enough to warrant their own article. Old content was revamped and the article moved to Pistol Sword, in order to focus on the real-world item. Gunblade was left to redirect to Pistol Sword. Instead, Gunblade should have been left to redirect to the Final Fantasy article, with Pistol Sword keeping the real-world bits. However, Pistol Swords seem to be little more than a footnote in military history, with nobody able or willing to provide the information necessary to upgrade the article from stub class. That's why I proposed that the real world Pistol Sword should be merged in to Bayonet, with Gunblade returning to its old redirect. I'll leave this up for a while longer, in case anyone has any compelling arguments against the above, before I do the merge, unless somebody else beats me to it. Any policies I should be aware of before doing that? --Cameron.walsh 03:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge. The size of both the bayonet and pistol sword articles represents a lack of editor contributions rather than limited room to expand. Both articles are too short, but that doesn't mean they should be thrown together--they are unique weapons, like the difference between a knife and a sword, or a rifle and a handgun. The pistol sword has a long history on the high seas and is an evolutionary step between bladed arms, like the cutlass (or its predecessor), and dependable firearms. The bayonet, on the other hand, is evolved from the pike, and its origins lie with the battlefield. They are two separate weapons serving similar, though unique purposes in history. I say, instead of spending the time on deciding whether or not to mix two articles together to make one more substantive, we should instead improve both articles to make the articles better. TeamZissou 23:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge. These are too different weapons, one rather rare, one extremely common. Rmhermen 03:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the term "pistol sword" is almost exclusive to Wikipedia (ie, OR). Less than 1000 G-hits. Axem Titanium 02:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it "Original Research" just because of the limited number of google hits - references have been provided. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a generally accepted name. "Gunblade" is exclusive to computer games, variations on "Pistol Sword" such as "Pistol Blade", "Pistol Cutlass" and so forth yield similar but slightly fewer google hits. The problem is that most of the information is not available online. Somebody needs to go to a library, bring forth the information and cite it. TeamZissou is correct in that bayonets and pistol swords serve different purposes (bayonets to cope with lack of ammunition and to avoid shooting team mates, pistol swords because the pistols were not sufficiently reliable and were slow to reload). --Cameron.walsh 12:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether the articles are merged or both are improved separately, it is clear that the Final Fantasy information does not belong with the article. Half of the game items work completely differently to the actual real world weapon. As a preliminary step, I'll redirect Gunblade to a FF items article, and remove the popular culture section on the pistol sword page. Unless there are objections to this, I'll do it in a week or two. --Cameron.walsh 12:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge. I agree with the opinion that the bayonet and pistol sword articles represent two separate weapons serving similar purposes. Also concur with the suggestion that both articles should be improved, especially related to mentioning supporting bibliography (that I don't have on this topic).

DPdH 02:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Oppose merge. I oppose as the bayonet is of historical significance. The pistol sword has no merit in regards to bayonets neither historically or in development. Further note that the bayonet is a military weapon while the pistol sword has no historical use in any military capacity. Merging articles & discussion revolving around videogames & fiction destroys the integrity of the existing article on bayonets and this pistol sword has no place whatsoever in any discussion on bayonets. I've read hundreds of books and websites on bayonets and not a single one of them refer to pistol swords or any similar weapon. The pistol sword is entirely irrelevant to the subject matter around bayonets & does not belong. 17,Jan. 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.253.196 (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose removing the merge tags and leaving the articles separate, based on a lack of consensus for the merge. Is that reasonable? JJL (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Previous move from Gunblade to Pistol Sword

I moved the article to "Gunblade" and added a note that it was a fictional weapon that really wouldn't work that well in real life.

Furthermore, Gunblades have very little to do with Pistol Swords. A better article specifically about Pistol Swords should really be made. Right now I just have it redirecting to Gunblade so other Final Fantasy articles still link to it.

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Final_Fantasy/archive/24#Articles_on_Real_World_Items. Fancruft is getting heavily deleted these days. I don't think it stands a chance as a Final Fantasy only page. Rmhermen 14:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem I had is that the "Pistol Sword" article was obviously about Gunblades, and hardly mentioned real Pistol Swords at all. I'd like to see Gunblade redirect to a list of Final Fantasy weapons or something. 68.224.240.157 06:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I rewrote the article to be specifically about the real world "Pistol Sword", and moved the description of the gunblade down into the FInal Fantasy section. The layout is a little unwieldy, but it's much more clear now what parts are about fictional items. Letting "Gunblade" redirect here will also sum up what it is, isn't, and direct the reader towards Final Fantasy articles. Tomorrow, in the daylight, I'll take a nice photo of the pistol-sword I have and put it up. 68.224.240.157 06:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research?

Does this term even exist in academic literature? Google test only scores 1000 hits outside Wikipedia and many are from coincidental pairings. Axem Titanium 20:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen no, someone created it to move it away from gunblade & it didn't work. --Nate1481( t/c) 09:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I propose a number of things to solve this:
  1. Move the article back to Gunblade to preserve edit history.
  2. Merge with Bayonet in a new section called "Fictional portrayal" or something.
  3. Delete the Pistol sword redirect because the term does not exist, use RfD or something.
Objections? Axem Titanium 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The Drawings in US patent number 52504 [1] and 254 [2] use the words "Pistol-Sword" and several replica weapon companies use them term. The weapons themselves were short-lived enough that much of the history is simply not on the web. Some of the few remaining weapons are on public display, albeit in Poland. Photos of surviving pistol-swords are available at [3] and [4]. Surely this is enough to satisfy the "no original research" criteria? As for what to do with the article, it should definitely not be merged under "fictional portrayal" given the evidence for the existence of the weapons. Unless you meant the Final Fantasy Gunblade material? I think we've established that the weapon did at one stage exist; the problem now is whether or not it is sufficiently different from a bayonet to warrant its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron.walsh (talk • contribs) 09:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I feel like the concept itself is not sufficiently different from bayonets; they're practically the same except bayonets are designed to be removable. I would suggest to go through with the merging then. Axem Titanium 00:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the weapon existed. Perhaps Sword revolver or Sword-revolver was a more common term? I don't see many references to it on Google, but it seems clear that such a thing was made and I'd say it merits an encyclopedia entry. As to fantasy "gunblades," I can think of others; e.g., in the movie Ultraviolet there is a variation of this idea (image here; yes, those are meant to be swords sticking out at the bottom). I would move the page to Sword revolver which is the term used in the lead paragraph at the original reference in the article. JJL (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)