Talk:Boffing

message: I doubt there's two article's worth of content here; there's enough between the two for a decent article already, though. Percy Snoodle 11:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given another few weeks I was planning on expanding both of them. I've already put together about a quarter of the skeleton of Boffer, and I'm currently working on a draft of Boffing, locally. If you feel that things should be merged, however, I don't see any really striking reason why not. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 15:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think it would be better to have one good article than two brief ones.  Also, can't Boffer mean someone who Boffs as well as the weapon?  Perhaps the combined article should be Boffer fighting? Percy Snoodle 11:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, I suppose that might be an alternate use for "boffer," although I've never come across it, myself. :-) Anyways, Boffer fighting or Boffer weapon fighting sound like the best potential titles for a merge of this nature, including sections on the sport itself (an expanded version of this article), the weapons (an expanded Boffer article), and possibly schools of boffer fighting technique and philosophy or examples of different groups and how they incorperate boffer fighting into their activities. I'm actually, as of late, writing a dissertation on the current utilization and balance of roleplaying elements in boffer fighting as a sport, drawing upon several local groups as case studies. Once I get it published it may be of some use here. Overall, I'd personally start work on the merge right away, but since I'm getting married tomorrow morning I'm a bit preoccupied. ;-) אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 14:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :-D congratulations! Percy Snoodle 14:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think merging them is a good idea if someone has time to do it, with re-directs from the "sub-terms". We need more "meaty" RPG articles, and should it expand too much you can always break something off to a separate article later. Jonas Karlsson 14:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with a merger, and I think that the Boffer weapon fighting name would be best. Boffing sounds like it could be misconstrued as... um... something definitely unintended from the actual context of the term... --Roninbk 04:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, a merger would be the best possible solution: preferably under the title of "Boffer Fighting", seeing as most of the searches I've done or come across are usually displayed under that title.  As a boffer fighter myself, I think it would be wise in your new article Steve to include the different styles of boffer fighting, so as to make it more comprehensive.  If you want some third-party help, I'm more than willing to provide my own research.S.G. Lear 01:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mind so much about a merger, just so long as someone is willing to seperate out the weapons used over here in Europe and the UK. Boffer is an American term, which is only used here as a derisive when talking about "Gaffer tape" weapons. Nzrouillard 11:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think a merger is a good idea; what is is called in Europe?  In our own little club we called them "noodle swords" primarily due to using "swimming noodles" as a primary construction element. General usage seems to "boffer" on this side of the pond, though looking at some folks faces when the say it leads me to think a better term would be welcome.  We primarily use it as a way to introduce kids (and their parents) to fencing, so model our fighting very much on classical fencing.  So agree with S.G. that a chunk of the new article should outline the various kinds of boffer fighting rule sets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Synature (talk • contribs) 22:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge