Talk:Swordstaff

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / European / Nordic / Medieval

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	European military history task force
	Nordic military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

Does anyone have any reliable references to this, or is it yet another bogus weapon invented by RPG designers? http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Svaerdstav+-%22total+war%22 yields just one hit. Even if this is genuine, "swordstaff" isn't the English language name for it; the article should probably be merged with glaive (which were usually single edged), although it sounds even more similar to some types of Ox tongue. -- Securiger 12:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed references tag, have now added three good references --Monstrelet (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dolstein vs Dolnstein[edit]

Hi, User:Monstrelet, I see you added info about "Dolstein" some 10 years ago, so can we rule out that you made a mistake and the source says Dolstein? Is it possible for you to check the source again? Anyway, the source seems not to be a scholarly work (some 60 pages, illustrations etc) but I may be wrong. It is up to you to assess that as I do not have access to the book. Generally spekaing, google hits for "Paul Dolnstein" seem more trustworthy than "Paul Dolstein" so I do not think that "Dolstein" is a variant of the name but a simple mistake that has spread. See for example https://www.worldcat.org/title/there-i-paul-dolnstein-saw-action-the-sketchbook-of-a-warrior-artisan-in-the-german-renaissance/oclc/807760263 and the 2018 MA theseis https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/bitstream/handle/1840.20/35794/etd.pdf which does not discuss a possible variant of the name but uses Dolnstein. As it seems quite convincig to me, I took the liberty to delete "Dolstein" from the article for the time being. WikiHannibal (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiHannibal, I actually agree that Dolnstein is the likely correct name. However, we have two wiki problems. Firstly, Dolstein is consistent with the name used by the cited source. Secondly, it seems from a simple Google search to be the more common in English. As to the source, I did indeed put it in many years ago simply because it was the source that first introduced these pictures to non-specialist English speakers. I still haven't found another (the pictures are all over the web but usually connected to blogs, websites, forums etc). I would suggest the answer is to find a better academic source which contains the appropriate illustrations, preferably in English. Even then, given Dolstein seems the more common variant, we would need I think to bracket it as alternative spelling. Monstrelet (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Monstrelet, thanks for your response; the problems you mention are in fact no problems at all. It is the reliability of the source, not which source was first or how much it is used. Ad your firstly, and I do not want to seem confrontational here, but have you checked again the source you used? Secondly, as for the picture, it seems it was you who added the picture with the description ten years ago. The picture seems to originate from a no longer functioning site (a forum?!) so we cannot check that. But is it not possible that the incorrect description spread from the forum/wiki? Have you checked reliablility of the sources that use it? Number of google hits is not important - Paul Dolstein = 801/106 hits and Paul Dolnstein = 1300/72 (Not sure what you mean by "simple search".) As you can see the Dolnstein sources are much more reliable. Could you please just choose two sources with "Dolstein" you consider most reliable and link them from here so that we (or any reader in the future) can assess their relability in relation with the two I have found? Also please note that there is the article de:Paul Dolnstein. If you are convinced, please change the picture as well. If not, could you perhaps invite some other people form the project(s) thsi article belongs to to participate in the discussion? Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: If I udnerstand it correctly, you said had not found a source with the picture with "Dolnstein". But I have provided such link in my first edit summary, to which you responded. I nany case, the link is here: http://kmb.raa.se/cocoon/bild/show-image.html?id=16001000508784 . WikiHannibal (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue here is a different understanding of wiki policy really. To me, there is nothing wrong with the source unless you can demonstrate some RS review against it? It is however not ideal, hence the need for a different source. But while it is in use cited we should not just change things from the cited source. I am aware of your other source but haven't had a chance to check it as the site with it on is down for maintenance. But I will. I note it is a thesis, which may be a positive. In terms of common usage, WP : COMMON NAME may apply here, I think. However, it may not. Like you, I don't want to be confrontational (especially as we agree) but wiki editing has rules and we should stick within them - there is no desperate hurry Monstrelet (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to find the original source on the Wayback Machine (including stripping the URL down to just the topic ID), but the topic thread doesn't seem to have been archived. Looking at both the Google searches for "Dolstein" and "Dolnstein", I can see both searches contain seemingly reliable sources to the support the respective spellings. On the face of it, my opinion would be that WP:RS would suggest that the original forum source would be possibly incorrect, and go with "Dolnstein" on the balance of evidence, but support for both spellings make it difficult. Monstrelet, you mention that the site is down for maintenance - do you know when it's expected to next be up? — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 15:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re site maintenance, I've no idea. Just got an announcement on the page. The thesis is here http://gradworks.umi.com/15/14/1514599.html

Sasuke Sarutobi, thanks for joining in. Could you please link two most reliable sources for Dolstein (as I asked, in vain, Monstrelet to do)? Monstrelet, I got confused, which thesis do you refer to? The thesis I linked is "The Othering of the Landsknechte by Andrew Arthur Hodnet." Did you have a look at it? Also please note that the book in my second source above is called "There I, Paul Dolnstein, saw action : the sketchbook of a warrior artisan in the German Renaissance". Not Dolstein. Seems the book (originally a thesis) was published by Grand Forks : University of North Dakota, 2012. WikiHannibal (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't get where the negativity is coming from. WikiHannibal could have linked these things himself - he doesn't need me. However, the Othering thesis is a masters thesis, so we have possible issues there, and seems to have been selected because it uses the variant name. The other "book" is actually a thesis, perhaps print on demand. I've provided the link above, which seems to have gone unnoticed. Better if we can to link to the thesis, for accessibility. I would rather we linked to that thesis if we can, because it is actually focussed on the artwork and on Dolnstein. Given the common use of the other spelling we should at least bracket it as an alternative for clarity for readers. Monstrelet (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done one more trawl. I can't get the link I posted (drawn from the bookmark of the work at academia.edu) to work due to security issues. I've looked again through worldcat. Three copies of the book seem to exist in libraries, one of which is the original manuscript. I've checked with the listed publisher (ProQuest) and they have no record of the book on their website. The book currently listed as a reference is published by a mainstream publisher and widely available - you can even preview it online. I'm afraid I lack the time to do more on this at the moment Monstrelet (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]