Talk:Fellblade

Hmm... is there a reason why we can't say the Fellblade is related to the Baneblade? First of all it was, second, because the few pictures of it that exist look a lot like the Baneblade...DMfromhell 11:34, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Without a source saying that it is like that you can't. And we don't interprete or interpolate, neither from pictures nor from something else. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 16:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fellblade, Glaive, and Falchion

For some reason, the Glaive is tucked here, while the Falchion has his own page. Should we create a page for the Glaive, or bring the Falchion into the Fellblade page as another variant of the same base design ?--Siegfriedfr (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer the page for the Glaive.--Darkelf77 (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

just curious about the why? I'm torn on that one --Siegfriedfr (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer separate articles rather than cluttering of one article with many paragraphs and sub-sections.--Darkelf77 (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

i wouldn't apply that rule in every case, especially if it means having to sift trough multiple stub articles about the same subject with slight variations (Leman russ tanks comes to mind). For the case at hand however i tend to agree, the naming convention of those tanks would be good enough reason to split this article--Siegfriedfr (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC).