Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sword"
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
By Pixel count, the red sword has a handle that is approximately 45% of the sword's length. The same goes roughly for the blue sword. I suppose if you were using some weird fish-eye lens on your camera, then the proportions might be that messed up, but the fact of the matter is that they appear illegal. Regardless of whether or not they would be legal if we measured the real things by hand, it is appearances that matter the most on an online encyclopedia, so we should at least try to find swords that 'appear legal', if that is at all possible. -Lurker | By Pixel count, the red sword has a handle that is approximately 45% of the sword's length. The same goes roughly for the blue sword. I suppose if you were using some weird fish-eye lens on your camera, then the proportions might be that messed up, but the fact of the matter is that they appear illegal. Regardless of whether or not they would be legal if we measured the real things by hand, it is appearances that matter the most on an online encyclopedia, so we should at least try to find swords that 'appear legal', if that is at all possible. -Lurker | ||
| + | |||
| + | Those illegal swords are still a pictured example. I can scrounge up some pictures by this weekend if you can't find any to replace them. It's been over a year.--[[User:Lurker|Lurker]] 07:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 07:36, 21 April 2010
Those CK swords are not legal- the handle is too long. Do we really want illegal examples on the Wiki? -Lurker
I think Lurker is right.
The strike legal portion of a non-pole/non-hinged must be 2/3 or more of the total length of the sword. I haven't counted pixels or anything, but those look a bit long to me. Remember, the pommel counts as part of the handle.
For reference:
They all contain the same verbage: The pommel and Handle of the weapon can be no longer than 1/3 of the weapon’s total length. If used to slash or bludgeon, at least 2/3 of its length must be Strike-Legal.
I suppose they could be thrust-only swords, but I Rather Doubt It. --Lucas 19:03, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I agree that in the picture they do appear to be of illegal measurements. But since they live in my closet, and I made them, I can assure you that they are of legal spec, squeaking to centimeter, but legal. I have been looking for another picture of typical round blades for a while, just haven't tripped over any. Either of you guys have one? --Linden 19:34, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I got nuttin'. --Lucas 20:33, 5 February 2009 (EST)
By Pixel count, the red sword has a handle that is approximately 45% of the sword's length. The same goes roughly for the blue sword. I suppose if you were using some weird fish-eye lens on your camera, then the proportions might be that messed up, but the fact of the matter is that they appear illegal. Regardless of whether or not they would be legal if we measured the real things by hand, it is appearances that matter the most on an online encyclopedia, so we should at least try to find swords that 'appear legal', if that is at all possible. -Lurker
Those illegal swords are still a pictured example. I can scrounge up some pictures by this weekend if you can't find any to replace them. It's been over a year.--Lurker 07:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
